Rubio is worse, by far.
39
What has become crystal clear is that The Republican Party establishment has been thoroughly rejected by party members and independents who vote Republican. Marco Rubio cannot win because those that support Carson, Cruz, Kasich, and Trump aren't going to support more of the same tired old party line, as Rubio continues to do. Trump will win the nomination unless he blows it and he's way too smart, as he has shown the pundits. Trump will also trounce Hillary. What Trump did to Bush is a minor preview of coming attractions compared to the skewering Hillary and Bill will soon receive from Donald. Democrats would have a better chance running Bernie. It will be interesting and funny to watch Donald call the Clintons out on the sexually predatory ex-President and his bullying wife. They don't stand a chance against The Donald.
20
A vote for Rubio is a vote for Adelson and certain war with Iran, just for starters. There's no comparison between Trump and Rubio as potential candidates. The first is completely his own man with a huge investment in being popular because of his pragmatic results in people's live. The second is a Manchurian Candidate for the furthest right, craziest elements of Likud Israel and the Israel Lobby, who's been hired to be a literal ventriloquist's dummy, as Christie so devastatingly showed us, for his war-mongering owner-operators. Beyond that, Rubio is an empty-headed fool who makes W look savvy. We though W was the worst imaginable American presidential disaster. In all areas, Rubio would be infinitely worse. Trump's not nearly as dangerous or "wacky' as his reality show campaign might suggest. He's crazy like a fox, he truly does understand economics and geopolitics, and he will indeed surround himself with the smartest talent money can buy, rather than with his puppeteers who'll endlessly tell him what he thinks.
82
"... it’s not at all clear which is worse."
The man with the peculiar hair is a lot of bluster. The method to his madness is to get the attention of the press while exploiting the pent-up frustrations of the GOP middle class. When viewed in that context, his actions and words are not so scary. In fact, Mr. Trump is providing a great service to the nation just by knocking off many of the other GOP candidates who would be dangerous. I am also pleased that he call out Jeb! regarding his brother's responsibility for 9/11 and irresponsibility in the Iraq invasion.
Rubio, on the other hand would be very dangerous in the White House. Rubio would be a puppet for the neocons. His presidency would be a return to the disastrous policies of Bush 43, but at least "W" had a conscience. Rubio's demeanor and ambition remind me of Nixon, but Nixon at least had good intentions for the country.
The man with the peculiar hair is a lot of bluster. The method to his madness is to get the attention of the press while exploiting the pent-up frustrations of the GOP middle class. When viewed in that context, his actions and words are not so scary. In fact, Mr. Trump is providing a great service to the nation just by knocking off many of the other GOP candidates who would be dangerous. I am also pleased that he call out Jeb! regarding his brother's responsibility for 9/11 and irresponsibility in the Iraq invasion.
Rubio, on the other hand would be very dangerous in the White House. Rubio would be a puppet for the neocons. His presidency would be a return to the disastrous policies of Bush 43, but at least "W" had a conscience. Rubio's demeanor and ambition remind me of Nixon, but Nixon at least had good intentions for the country.
47
I hate to ask it, but is Mr. Rubio a bit thick? Mr. Krugman says, "He is, instead, pandering to the party’s elite, consisting mainly of big donors and the network of apparatchiks at think tanks, media organizations, and so on."
WHY? I'm a Dem with only a cursory acquaintance with the Republican side of this carnival--it's hard to avoid The Orange One--but even I know that Marco Rubio is the party's choice over Trump and Cruz, and has been so for months. I believe there's some wistfulness about Kasich, but if the Republicans respect anything, it's numbers.
So why would Mario continue to court a market he's already sold, unless he's just not that swift, or is ill advised, or very, very insecure? If any of the above, why on earth would they want to back him? I'd see a GWB redux, and find another clown.
WHY? I'm a Dem with only a cursory acquaintance with the Republican side of this carnival--it's hard to avoid The Orange One--but even I know that Marco Rubio is the party's choice over Trump and Cruz, and has been so for months. I believe there's some wistfulness about Kasich, but if the Republicans respect anything, it's numbers.
So why would Mario continue to court a market he's already sold, unless he's just not that swift, or is ill advised, or very, very insecure? If any of the above, why on earth would they want to back him? I'd see a GWB redux, and find another clown.
19
Dr Krugman and Readers: I) Mr Rubio is simply advocating laissez-faire economics. Under such an economic perspective, the economic costs of any governmental interference with the functioning of free markets far outweigh any economic benefits that will result from such interference. II) The projected economic growth by Mr Rubio will appear as tax receipts "irrationally" allocated to very low ROI uses are reallocated toward more productive uses. III) If the rich are allowed to keep all of their investment income without interference from income taxes, for example, theoretically they will be willing to allocate fewer hours to leisure and more hours to improving their investment decisions; and the ROIs from these decisions.
IV) A balanced-budget amendment would similarly limit fiscal policy stimulus alternatives as monetary policy is also neutralized as a stimulus. During the Great Recession, a combination of stimulatory fiscal policy with annual fiscal deficits peaking at about $1.6 trillion; and, robust, innovative stimulatory monetary policies such as Quantitative Easing, prevented a complete US economic meltdown at a time of collapsing consumer confidence in the financial sector, and overall economy.
V) With a GDP of $17.9 trillion divided by a population of 320 million people, mean US income should be a maximum of [($17.9 tr/320 million people) = $55,937.50]; so Mr John F. McBride's reported mean US income of $72,641 may do with more explication.
[02/22/16 M 10:52A]
IV) A balanced-budget amendment would similarly limit fiscal policy stimulus alternatives as monetary policy is also neutralized as a stimulus. During the Great Recession, a combination of stimulatory fiscal policy with annual fiscal deficits peaking at about $1.6 trillion; and, robust, innovative stimulatory monetary policies such as Quantitative Easing, prevented a complete US economic meltdown at a time of collapsing consumer confidence in the financial sector, and overall economy.
V) With a GDP of $17.9 trillion divided by a population of 320 million people, mean US income should be a maximum of [($17.9 tr/320 million people) = $55,937.50]; so Mr John F. McBride's reported mean US income of $72,641 may do with more explication.
[02/22/16 M 10:52A]
The most disturbing thing about Marco Rubio is not so much his plan, but the fact that he obviously didn't mould it himself, much less give it any real thought. Mr. Rubio's ability to switch sides in any argument is almost as astounding as his lack of knowledge in foreign policy. By posing as the 'anti-Trump', he may seem as the lesser of two downright contemptible Republican choices, but sooner or later the strings behind his back will start to show. The rest of the story we already know. Just follow the money.
44
Not since the Vandals sacked Rome has a public treasury been so systematically looted as under GOP governance since Reagan.
102
Rubio is the quintessential Shill for the Oligarchs. In many ways he should be feared more than Trump. Rubio is a puppet. Worse than a puppet, a deer in the headlights puppet. His billionare handelers have a clear agenda, and want their man in the Oval Office. They know how to scare him into a corner, to push the right buttons to get what they need. GOP establishment? More like GOP water boy.
94
I actually think Trump is just telling them all what they want to hear. Based on his history, nobody has any idea what he really believes or what he will do in office. He will even go to the left of Hillary or even Bernie on some issues come fall, if he thinks it will lead to a win. Trump would be the most narcissistic president in US history by an order of magnitude, and that is saying allot. The good news is, he has left an extensive video trail. When expertly edited, anti Trump commercials will likely scare most of America to its senses come November. The Donald will be hawking signed copies of them on QVC by next spring.
126
I understand the need here to deal with economic issues, but I really struggle trying to "leave aside Mr. Rubio’s terrifying statements on foreign policy and his evident willingness to make a bonfire of civil liberties." When he talks about huge matters like the Iran nuclear accord, the global climate treaty, national health insurance or separation of church and state, Mr. Rubio sounds like he just can't wait to become Abrogator in Chief. He could be the most impulsive candidate we've seen in a good long time, present company included.
83
We should also all be forced to remember that Rubio's singular legislative
"accomplishment" was to insert text into the 2014 omnibus spending grab bag that completely undercut the expected three year timeline for getting the
non profit health insurance cooperatives up on their feet with stable reimbursement formulae to cover initial instabilities, due to the influx
of new and previously uninsured (and therefore less healthy) customers.
As a result a number of, if not all, these
coops have gone under and the private for profit companies have
absorbed their subscribers, who will now have much less choice in their insurer.
The destabilization at the end of last year of the coop market
was a very clever victory for the insurance industry that eliminated
its state based coop competitors. It was camouflaged by
the standard ideological nonsense put out by shills such as Rubio
that the reimbursements represented federal pork at its worst and
interfered with free market functioning.
Unfortunately we did not manage to learn at the time (nor even now??) how much PAC money has subsequently
flowed to Rubio from the insurance companies in payment for his little legislative "accomplishment", done under cover and at the last minute.
Does anyone have any information about that?
"accomplishment" was to insert text into the 2014 omnibus spending grab bag that completely undercut the expected three year timeline for getting the
non profit health insurance cooperatives up on their feet with stable reimbursement formulae to cover initial instabilities, due to the influx
of new and previously uninsured (and therefore less healthy) customers.
As a result a number of, if not all, these
coops have gone under and the private for profit companies have
absorbed their subscribers, who will now have much less choice in their insurer.
The destabilization at the end of last year of the coop market
was a very clever victory for the insurance industry that eliminated
its state based coop competitors. It was camouflaged by
the standard ideological nonsense put out by shills such as Rubio
that the reimbursements represented federal pork at its worst and
interfered with free market functioning.
Unfortunately we did not manage to learn at the time (nor even now??) how much PAC money has subsequently
flowed to Rubio from the insurance companies in payment for his little legislative "accomplishment", done under cover and at the last minute.
Does anyone have any information about that?
45
The whole idea that Marco Rubio would be considered "establishment" is comic on its face. Like Ted Cruz in Texas, Rubio was recruited at the 11th hour by The Club for Growth and Tea Party groups to run for the Florida Senate seat against the real GOP establishment candidate in that race, Charlie Crist.
It is a testament to how far right the GOP has drifted that Rubio would be looked on as the last, best hope for the GOP "establishment".
It is a testament to how far right the GOP has drifted that Rubio would be looked on as the last, best hope for the GOP "establishment".
40
To my utter horror, I sometimes find myself marveling at how reasonable Mr. Trump is compared to his opponents. When he inveighs against the Iraq War and defends progressive taxation, Social Security, and Medicare, I wonder if he might actually have moments of lucid thought. Combine this with his utter contempt for the Republican Establishment and his self-funded campaign, I find myself preferring him to either Cruz or Rubio. I can find no more damning indictment of the Republicans than that.
81
Rubio and Cruz scare me. The election of either would probably insure our further involvement in the Middle East fiasco as well as destruction of any remaining social safety net and further bloating of an already bloated military. The inability of many voters to recognize the problem is about as scary. It's a sad state of affairs when Donald Trump is the best candidate the Republicans have to offer.
44
PK's piece is thoughtful and accurate. But he left a candidate out of the equation - ME: A 62 year old African American professional.
My platform:
- Two years mandatory national service for EVERY individual upon graduation from high school.
Service may be in the military, or civilian corp, teaching or signing up as paid interns to learn trades while serving in a variety of pro-bono activities to be sponsored by businesses across a field of disciplines.
For such service each individual will receive both college level accreditation as well as a government sponsored college scholarship account with which they can differ tuition costs.
- Federal income tax increase to 75% for those with incomes over three million dollars.
Built into this will be incentivized deductions to government sanctioned entities that will focus on providing health care services in needed communities; educational grants and scholarships for both young HS graduates as well as older displaced workers.
- Apprenticeship programs designed to serve those individuals choosing an alternative to college.
Paid for by the business employing the apprentice, who will gain both knowledge and practical experience while being paid. Germany has had such programs for decades.
- Gradual increase in the retirement age to 68.
To be accomplished with incentive programs bolstered by recent health research that shows an increase in longevity and happiness in individuals who continue to do meaningful work into old age.
My platform:
- Two years mandatory national service for EVERY individual upon graduation from high school.
Service may be in the military, or civilian corp, teaching or signing up as paid interns to learn trades while serving in a variety of pro-bono activities to be sponsored by businesses across a field of disciplines.
For such service each individual will receive both college level accreditation as well as a government sponsored college scholarship account with which they can differ tuition costs.
- Federal income tax increase to 75% for those with incomes over three million dollars.
Built into this will be incentivized deductions to government sanctioned entities that will focus on providing health care services in needed communities; educational grants and scholarships for both young HS graduates as well as older displaced workers.
- Apprenticeship programs designed to serve those individuals choosing an alternative to college.
Paid for by the business employing the apprentice, who will gain both knowledge and practical experience while being paid. Germany has had such programs for decades.
- Gradual increase in the retirement age to 68.
To be accomplished with incentive programs bolstered by recent health research that shows an increase in longevity and happiness in individuals who continue to do meaningful work into old age.
35
It's still about coattails.
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/22/why_bernie_sanders_won_the_democratic_pr...
If Bernie's movement stays active over the next 4 years, with or without him being in the Whitehouse, he will have been a success. The question is who will be the "organizer?" Occupy tried "hive organization" and it didn't work. The Tea party had the Koch Bro's and it fundamentally changed the right.
While the race for the press is important, we need MUCH more.
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/22/why_bernie_sanders_won_the_democratic_pr...
If Bernie's movement stays active over the next 4 years, with or without him being in the Whitehouse, he will have been a success. The question is who will be the "organizer?" Occupy tried "hive organization" and it didn't work. The Tea party had the Koch Bro's and it fundamentally changed the right.
While the race for the press is important, we need MUCH more.
17
Kasich the "moderate" just outlawed any federal financial aid to Planned Parenthood or any organization providing abortions in Ohio. What a fraud.
64
Mr. Rubio is not "pandering to an ignorant elite".
He is pandering to a highly class conscious elite.
He is pandering to a highly class conscious elite.
33
Every republican here in Texas that I speak with says they want to keep Social Security and Medicare just like it is. Do not support raising the retirement age. But when I point out that the Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz say they both want to raise the retirement age, cut back on benefits and privatize Social Security/Medicare they say that is why they are supporting Trump.
So for me it breaks like this. Bernie wins the nomination it is Bernie all the way. If Cruz or Rubio win and Hillary wins then I will vote for Hillary. But between Trump and Hillary I may have to consider Trump.
So for me it breaks like this. Bernie wins the nomination it is Bernie all the way. If Cruz or Rubio win and Hillary wins then I will vote for Hillary. But between Trump and Hillary I may have to consider Trump.
51
Romney and Ryan are looking really good compared to Donald and Goofy (Rubio) or Daffy (Cruz). These cartoon characters, erstwhile referred to as clowns, are indeed scary prospects as our country's possible leaders. Thank goodness it appears that Hillary Clinton and her to-be-determined VP candidate will be solid, serious leaders capable of leading us and the world forward in sensible ways. If November 2016 is to be a showdown of the cranks/crazies vs. the sane/sensibles, so be it -- but it sure would be nicer if the Republicans could field some reasonable candidates like Romney/Ryan in 2012. [Lest we forget, one of true crazies, the then governor of Alaska, was on the 2008 ticket; when did the Democrats last put anyone so truly unqualified on one of its tickets?]
5
The GOP has kept its base distracted by peddling social and moral issues like culture wars while continually pushing economic policies that are disastrous for most of their base. Marco Rubio is another Republican dancing to the tune being played by his wealthy patrons. My guess is that if you posed this simple question to him: "why should earned wages be taxed at a higher rate than investment income?", he would either not have an answer or would have an answer that has no factual basis. What surprises me is that the Republican base never seems to ask the party leaders this very question or realizes they've been had.
10
Things don't look good for United States future. Recovery may end soon. Political you have Hillary or Trump. So downhill the country will go. The poor will increase in number. How the rest of countries do is a question mark. Only good thing for me is I will be dead soon via I go to get treatment because of loss of kidney function. I did come across Crispr/Cas9 which modifies DNA and maybe possible to cure HIV disease. So some good things will be in the future. I did research in AIDS for 13 years. Good to see that process will continue even as other areas show weakness. Hold on for the weakness and things may turn around.
3
As a resident of Florida, I can tell you that Rubio doesn't have a reputation for extraordinary or even above-average intelligence. His debate performances bear this out: he repeats scripted lines, even when they don't make sense.
Just one question: where does Prof. Krugman get his headlines for his commentaries? They're quite enjoyable.
Just one question: where does Prof. Krugman get his headlines for his commentaries? They're quite enjoyable.
9
I think Republicans, like Rubio, have heard the balanced budget rap so long that they believe it. I doubt if Rubio knows anything about even basic economics. I think he understands politics, and campaigns as they have worked for him in the past, period.. He is the most scary candidate out there as he is the dumbest one of the bunch. Dumb presidents are easily influenced.. the last thing we need is another president marching to the beat of another Cheney. As for Hillary I hope not, as a nomination for her will mean that I am unable, unwilling to vote for yet another corrupt candidate.
2
The one thing we've seen time and again is that tax cuts on the wealthy remove any incentive for them to put their wealth to work, where it might actually benefit other people.
49
Every indépendant voter hesitating between the Republican or the
Democrat candidate when come the general election should read
Krugman's column. Economic policies are essential to keep a country
on the right track for the benefit of a majority of citizen. Any of those
three political stooges when elected president will implement the
crank doctrines in economics favoured by the GOP with disastrous
effects on the day by day life of Americans regardless of their
political affiliations. This is not a partisan issue but plain and
simple common sense on a crucial matter perfectly highlight
by Krugman's analysis.
Democrat candidate when come the general election should read
Krugman's column. Economic policies are essential to keep a country
on the right track for the benefit of a majority of citizen. Any of those
three political stooges when elected president will implement the
crank doctrines in economics favoured by the GOP with disastrous
effects on the day by day life of Americans regardless of their
political affiliations. This is not a partisan issue but plain and
simple common sense on a crucial matter perfectly highlight
by Krugman's analysis.
26
I am surprised that 2 small states, NH and Iowa, and the unfolding primary caucuses and elections in Nevada and SC has narrowed the race for National Executive Leadership to Republican Light (as Mr. Sanders has termed the Democrats) and the Republican establishment. Meaning that we can expect more of the same. It is disappointing.
I was hoping that we would move away from the "wilderness" of tribal identification and begin to address the problems that were strongly signaled by the Great Recession and the very slow recovery. The US economy is NOT performing well. Non-partisan organizations like the CBO continually adjust downward the potential of the economy.
We have major negative economic trends that need correction. We are not comparing well with the other advanced economies. It will require a lot of heavy lifting in making the shift from fossil energy to sustainable energy forms and more of the same won't work. We clearly need new approaches to overcome the control of existing industries on innovation. Our investment portfolio must make the change but at the same time we must be concerned with what happens to the workers in the fossil industry.
It is a little crazy that we can't seem to at least discuss how we are going to approach global warming rather than denial of an entire political party. I think there is potential for achieving a better life and making the economy more egalitarian but I am disappointing in our seeming inability to get the message out.
I was hoping that we would move away from the "wilderness" of tribal identification and begin to address the problems that were strongly signaled by the Great Recession and the very slow recovery. The US economy is NOT performing well. Non-partisan organizations like the CBO continually adjust downward the potential of the economy.
We have major negative economic trends that need correction. We are not comparing well with the other advanced economies. It will require a lot of heavy lifting in making the shift from fossil energy to sustainable energy forms and more of the same won't work. We clearly need new approaches to overcome the control of existing industries on innovation. Our investment portfolio must make the change but at the same time we must be concerned with what happens to the workers in the fossil industry.
It is a little crazy that we can't seem to at least discuss how we are going to approach global warming rather than denial of an entire political party. I think there is potential for achieving a better life and making the economy more egalitarian but I am disappointing in our seeming inability to get the message out.
7
Let us hope that the current republican campaign will finally put to rest the notion that non-partisan independents seem to hold dear, there is such a thing as a moderate republican.
Moderate republicans have given us 70% of ALL U.S. debt since its birth; and that was only three of them Reagan, Bush I and bush ii. Those same moderate independents have voted for at least three Bush wars and four Bush invasions; while St. Reagan oversaw the destruction of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut and the deaths of hundreds of troops. Oops.
I have been rooting for the complete overhaul of America that Sanders' election would bring about, but Hillary Clinton is so much more sane and capable than any republican I can think of any where in the Nation.
Please, America, do the right thing this year. Do not elect a republican. To anything.
Moderate republicans have given us 70% of ALL U.S. debt since its birth; and that was only three of them Reagan, Bush I and bush ii. Those same moderate independents have voted for at least three Bush wars and four Bush invasions; while St. Reagan oversaw the destruction of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut and the deaths of hundreds of troops. Oops.
I have been rooting for the complete overhaul of America that Sanders' election would bring about, but Hillary Clinton is so much more sane and capable than any republican I can think of any where in the Nation.
Please, America, do the right thing this year. Do not elect a republican. To anything.
61
I sit in my dark little living room, the images on the TV flicker and I see the various little Republican men, in their matching little suits and red ties at their at their podiums mechanically answering questions about how they would solve this and that. It has a robotic, steampunk, disconnected, and surreal quality. After awhile it all looks like a remake of the movie Brazil. Little men staring up at other men on big podiums...spouting gibberish. As once character, Harry Tuttle says, " Why? I came into this game for the action, the excitement. Go anywhere, travel light, get in, get out, wherever there's trouble, a man alone. Now they got the whole country sectioned off, you can't make a move without a form." As the TV cameras pan out to the audience we see a collective shaking of heads up and down or back and forth, agreeing and disagreeing.
3
Rubio is an empty shirt. And a very scary one at that. He doesn't know squat about economics, and his bluster about foreign policy is juvenile. He is not a "mainstream Republican" in any true sense. If the big money boys and girls bail him out, then they are as dumb as he is.
9
Krugman is scared. Very scared. Keynesian financial policy has been tried big time, and it has failed. Federal debt has soared from less than $11 trillion to nearly $19 trillion in less than 7 years. Obama and he Fed have spent like drunken sailors on stimulus and quantitative easing. The result? Economic growth of less than 1% in the last 3 years. The lowest labor participation rate since the Great Depression. Record use of food stamps and social welfare programs at taxpayer expense. Now the Republicans are poised to take the White House. When they do, the process of rebuilding our economy will begin. And Krugman will be left to the dustbin of failed and repudiated economic policy.
4
I made an argument similar to this at a dinner party last night and was almost thrown out by an infuriated hostess. How could I possibly support the fascist Trump? This ridiculous man has qualities that Rubio and Cruz seem to lack entirely. They are obscured by his outrageous ego and big mouth, but they are there. The Republican presidential candidates are scary in the extreme, but Trump, although personally disgusting, is over toward the least scary end of the spectrum. Kasich reminds me of Scott Walker and think of how disastrous that would be for us.
6
Here's a 25 year long career-Nevada reporter, Jon Ralston, on Harry Reid using muscle to steer low wage hotel and casino workers to caucus for Hillary. She would not have been able to win Nevada without Reid's muscle:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/02/20/hillary-clinton-wins-ne...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/02/20/hillary-clinton-wins-ne...
6
The most striking thing about this election is the complete absence of new ideas. The Republican’s are again hawking tax cuts, deregulation, and bellicosity in foreign affairs. How they get away with arguing for another disastrous Bush administration only bigger and worse is beyond comprehension. There is nothing new on the other side either, Clinton is selling Obama policies that couldn’t get threw an obstructionist Congress and Sanders is reaching back further to resurrect ideas from the sixties. Even Black Lives Matter echoes the ten-point program of the Black Panthers.
What isn’t surprising is the dualistic nature of our politics. There are only two sides, us and them, blue and red, good guys and bad guys and everyone thinks the role of government is to defeat the other side. The media pushes this narrative because it is easy to sell. I don’t care anymore who started it; it has to stop. The founders saw society as a complex set of multiple competing classes and interests coming together to govern themselves through compromise.
The Right has to see that inequality and poverty are tearing us apart. The Left has to realize that corporations and banks aren’t going anywhere and that they have power that can’t be constrained by governments anymore. It will take international cooperation as well as the cooperation of the banks and corporations, to reform society. We need new ideas and a willingness to listen to them. It isn’t us and them; it is just us.
What isn’t surprising is the dualistic nature of our politics. There are only two sides, us and them, blue and red, good guys and bad guys and everyone thinks the role of government is to defeat the other side. The media pushes this narrative because it is easy to sell. I don’t care anymore who started it; it has to stop. The founders saw society as a complex set of multiple competing classes and interests coming together to govern themselves through compromise.
The Right has to see that inequality and poverty are tearing us apart. The Left has to realize that corporations and banks aren’t going anywhere and that they have power that can’t be constrained by governments anymore. It will take international cooperation as well as the cooperation of the banks and corporations, to reform society. We need new ideas and a willingness to listen to them. It isn’t us and them; it is just us.
171
Nice point about the top-down, supply-side imposition of ideological fictions on an ignorant and mean conservative base of the Republican Party.
The anger of the base motivated by the broken promises of a do-nothing Republican-controlled Congress will be multiplied by the broken promises of a Trump presidency. Alternatively, the concern should be that a President Trump will simply arrogate powers to do as he wishes in the absence of legal authority by a feeble and feckless Congress.
The anger of the base motivated by the broken promises of a do-nothing Republican-controlled Congress will be multiplied by the broken promises of a Trump presidency. Alternatively, the concern should be that a President Trump will simply arrogate powers to do as he wishes in the absence of legal authority by a feeble and feckless Congress.
5
I would still include Ted Cruz as possibly being the Republican Candidate for president. He is one man who completely only cares about himself and has NO redeeming social values for the common good. I believe Bernie Sanders is the only candidate running for President who with the Senate being controlled by the Democrats again would be able to make changes that would better the lives of most Americans, Hillary would be Obama part three and I believe Republicans would be against anything she would propose to Congress even more than they did when Obama was President.
11
As a retired and very aged Lutheran pastor and still a believer, I resent the Cruz/Rubio use of the long-standing God's Will theology to lure in voters. Power, as many commenters point out, is their goal....Not Service. I'm old enough to remember, with longing, for the old days of H.Humphry, Bob Dole, and George McGovern, who could reach across the line and actually talk with each other. It was Humphry who said,"It's sad..the rotten things you have to do to get elected...so you can do good things". This generation of elected Non-servants...does Not seem bothered by the Contradiction. Fabrication and lying is just "Creativity". Always my gratitude for Dr. Krugman, who aids in my Sanity and Trust.
37
Where is your mention of Crazy Cruz. Unreasoning reactionary fear and anger is the stock in trade of all Republicans and those who do not buy into the anger are squeezed out. Will the pitch fork wielding mob response of Republicans ever abate? Not until every Progressive ideal is crushed, every face turns magically white and every woman is made to stay home barefoot and pregnant.
12
Balanced commentary as usual from Mr Krugman.
9
Using a back of the envelope calculation, Rubio's tax plan would need to generate roughly 14% annual growth in GNP to re-generate the lost tax revenue.
If Rubio taxes are reduced by $6.8 Trillion over a ten year period, this equals $680 Billion per year.
The premise of the Rubio / Cruz / GOP tax cut plans are that they will stimulate extraordinary growth.
Let’s take a simple look at this premise.
We have an $18.2 T economy (GNP) growing at roughly 2% per year. This equates to a GNP growth of $364 B.
A whopping Laffer growth rate of 6% generates growth of $1.092 T.
At a 25% tax rate, this Laffer 6% growth would generate an incremental $273 B in taxes versus the stimulus tax cut of $680 Billion.
To reach a break-even, the GNP would need to increase an incremental $2.7 Trillion per year or +14.8% growth (again using a 25% tax rate) to replace an annual $680 B in tax revenue.
My question would be: "Is GNP annual growth of 14% for 10 years feasible?"
If Rubio taxes are reduced by $6.8 Trillion over a ten year period, this equals $680 Billion per year.
The premise of the Rubio / Cruz / GOP tax cut plans are that they will stimulate extraordinary growth.
Let’s take a simple look at this premise.
We have an $18.2 T economy (GNP) growing at roughly 2% per year. This equates to a GNP growth of $364 B.
A whopping Laffer growth rate of 6% generates growth of $1.092 T.
At a 25% tax rate, this Laffer 6% growth would generate an incremental $273 B in taxes versus the stimulus tax cut of $680 Billion.
To reach a break-even, the GNP would need to increase an incremental $2.7 Trillion per year or +14.8% growth (again using a 25% tax rate) to replace an annual $680 B in tax revenue.
My question would be: "Is GNP annual growth of 14% for 10 years feasible?"
9
If Rubio gets elected and eliminates taxes on the wealthy and also pushes through a balanced budget amendment, this will make all our lives much better.
The only way to balance the budget without tax revenues from the rich is to cut waste. For example, people think their Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes are an investment in a retirement pension and healthcare in their golden years. NO! These funds must be used to support our military that's keeping us safe from 1 billion goatherds who want to overrun America and impose Sharia Law.
The elderly should live off their savings, and not expect any return on their social security taxes or Medicare taxes. They can be covered by the ACA, where, for $500 a month, they can get a policy with a $5,000 deductible and a 50% co-pay. So, without food or housing or healthcare, instead of 20 or 30 years suffering all the aches and pains that afflict the elderly, the elderly will only live a few months after retirement, and thus will be spared may painful years.
Sounds like a great plan to me. (Can I move to Canada now that I'm over 65?)
The only way to balance the budget without tax revenues from the rich is to cut waste. For example, people think their Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes are an investment in a retirement pension and healthcare in their golden years. NO! These funds must be used to support our military that's keeping us safe from 1 billion goatherds who want to overrun America and impose Sharia Law.
The elderly should live off their savings, and not expect any return on their social security taxes or Medicare taxes. They can be covered by the ACA, where, for $500 a month, they can get a policy with a $5,000 deductible and a 50% co-pay. So, without food or housing or healthcare, instead of 20 or 30 years suffering all the aches and pains that afflict the elderly, the elderly will only live a few months after retirement, and thus will be spared may painful years.
Sounds like a great plan to me. (Can I move to Canada now that I'm over 65?)
34
Elections are won with attitudes and broad-brush policies not with detailed wonkish policies. John Kerry: I have a plan... ad nauseum.
Trump avoids specifics but exudes American machismo. Bernie wants to do a lot, including demilitarizing "our" police forces. It's nice once in a while to get your dander up, but undirected, that leads to suicide missions, not electoral victory.
Trump avoids specifics but exudes American machismo. Bernie wants to do a lot, including demilitarizing "our" police forces. It's nice once in a while to get your dander up, but undirected, that leads to suicide missions, not electoral victory.
1
"If prediction markets (and most hardheaded analysis) are to be believed, Hillary Clinton, having demonstrated her staying power, is the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic nomination.", actually in the elected delegate count the race is tied 51-51. Just so you know.
10
Senator Rubio is callow and shallow man whose driving force during his entire adult life has been to feed at the public trough.
25
No, Doctor, the "elite" to whom Norman Braman's Cabana Boy bows, scrapes and serves, is hardly "ignorant." No, siree, they are simple imbued with an unstoppable avarice. It's like a fiscal tapeworm that requires taking all of the money in the world, if possible, before the greed tapeworm kills the host, our country.
Rubio might have no idea what his policies might mean in terms of consequence, but his masters are demanding exactly what they want, the cost to the nation be damned.
Rubio might have no idea what his policies might mean in terms of consequence, but his masters are demanding exactly what they want, the cost to the nation be damned.
23
Rubio has been unable to manage is personal finances without the assistance of sugar daddies. How can he know anything about managing a nation's finances?
22
Says Krugman, "If prediction markets (and most hardheaded analysis) are to be believed, Hillary Clinton, having demonstrated her staying power, is the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic nomination."
Paul, hasn't this campaign, at long last, clearly demonstrated that prediction markets and hardheaded analysts are, specifically, NOT to be believed?
Paul, hasn't this campaign, at long last, clearly demonstrated that prediction markets and hardheaded analysts are, specifically, NOT to be believed?
8
I strongly recommend that Republicans take a look at the book Dark Money, which explains, in great detail, the source of the GOP's infatuation with tax cuts and deregulation ---- it has nothing to do with economics or helping the middle class, it has everything to do with the one-percent's goal of keeping as much money as possible and earning as much money as possible. To accomplish these goals, dark monied interests, bring the Rubio's and Cruz's in a room, and tell them, yes tell them, in exchange for our money, make sure that you protect our money ---the platform is simple---no taxes on us, no unions in our factories, and no regulation of our money and our lands --- oh, one more plank---turn over all governmental lands to us. Now hit the campaign trail.
25
I perused the NYT as I always do this morning: a quick glance at the front page above the fold followed by a deep dive into the Opinion section. The front page yielded a story about about the Democratic candidate totals forecasting very bad news for Bernie and then there was the lead column by Charles Blow with much the same. But the real proof that the Times thinks it's all over but the shouting came when I realized the editorial board didn't even require Dr. K to continue his pile on and released him to actually return to economics. RIP Bernie. We hardly knew ye.
4
The 2 parties are behaving very similar to each other. One is Bashing Rubio and Sanders. The other is bashing Trump. I'll project a Trump win in the GE.
And I won't be very upset by it. It might be refreshing.
Definitely won't be supporting a party that doesn't respect its constituents, and that's the Democrats.
And I won't be very upset by it. It might be refreshing.
Definitely won't be supporting a party that doesn't respect its constituents, and that's the Democrats.
6
Something you forgot about Rubio is the "thanking Jesus" ending to his non-victory victory speeches. I've just had my 70th birthday, and I don't remember such public expressions of religion gratitude by Presidential candidates. And, of course, these expressions of faith are limited to Christians, excluding Muslims both spiritually from blessings and bodily from immigration. If high school football teams can't pray publicly to Jesus before a football game, why must we listen to candidates at the highest level express similar beliefs? Will this end when we elect the first Muslim who decides to display in public the actions his faith requires?
20
I would think that Trump, as a businessman who's actually made some money, would be smarter about economics than Rubio, who's done nothing but lose money. Rubio is a very poor money manager. I'm surprised the billionaires financing his campaign are willing to trust him with their money. It would NOT surprise me to hear that after the campaign is over, and campaign funds have to be accounted for, the books don't exactly add up.
2
Rubio frightens me more than Trump does.
The phrase "empty suit" was seemingly coined just for him.
I'd rather have Trump as president, at least then I'd be entertained every night.
The phrase "empty suit" was seemingly coined just for him.
I'd rather have Trump as president, at least then I'd be entertained every night.
10
For those who support the GOP candidates, what a variety of choices from billionaire boastful Trump to the kid who defaults to robotic response , or there is he who believes his smarts are better than all. W/o going into less government but for control of women's bodies, Krugman's points are to o be heeded: tax cuts along w/balanced budgets , who is Rubio kidding? He and GOP Gang of Three now are simply awful to consider as presidential material: Awful.
8
The only reasons that Clinton can be considered the overwhelming favorite is because the Democrats have those "super delegates" and the media has given short shrift (including PK) to Sanders.
His numbers do add up and Friedman isn't the only one saying that.... so much for an unbiased media that is controlled by the big money Sanders rails against and for a "democratic" Democrat Party.
His numbers do add up and Friedman isn't the only one saying that.... so much for an unbiased media that is controlled by the big money Sanders rails against and for a "democratic" Democrat Party.
16
Republicans will sell this country down the river. Clinton may give us one oar. Bernie Sanders is still my candidate.
19
Ignorance is daring, and arrogant, claiming things that are "pure wind". Worse, the remaining republican candidates are, as any 'respectable' demagogue is, willfully ignorant of the facts. The 'hare one, bombastic in his bullying, seems to be giving a run for their money to the other two charlatans, the latter one's full of religious dogma, vulgar in their attacks on each other and the savior (Obama) of his irresponsible predecessor. Having this cadre of misfits, is there any reason to expect a fruitful outcome?
5
Rubio may not be speaking to the "ignorant voters" as opposed to the "ignorant elite" but the former group is probably much much larger in numbers and they will be the ones to put him over the top if indeed he was to win.
The "ignorant voters" are typically of middle class origin and seem to have a masochistic compulsion to vote against their own economic interest over and over and over again.
Perhaps when you live with your head in the sand one hears the phrase "tax cuts for the rich " as " you will get rich by voting republican". Quite an echo>.
There are indeed numerous explanations for the middle class' compulsion to keep voting against themselves, but, maybe they are just "stupid".
The "ignorant voters" are typically of middle class origin and seem to have a masochistic compulsion to vote against their own economic interest over and over and over again.
Perhaps when you live with your head in the sand one hears the phrase "tax cuts for the rich " as " you will get rich by voting republican". Quite an echo>.
There are indeed numerous explanations for the middle class' compulsion to keep voting against themselves, but, maybe they are just "stupid".
11
One wonders what has happened to Republican orthodoxy and standard for what qualifies one to be president, plus what qualifies one to be the Republican nominee. It used to be that "executive" experience and private sector experience was vital. If so, Rubio is a complete contradiction of the GOP's own alleged standards...he's fit to be the GOP version of everything they claimed to hate about Obama: slick fast talker who can memorize lines, yet spent his whole life as a politician, minimal private sector experience, no executive experience making difficult decisions, no accomplishments, was barely a functioning member of the US senate yet collected his 6 figure salary, grew up on government programs (which he now wants to cut for others) etc.
That's just qualifications. Heck, Rubio is even talking about expanding programs such as the 'Earned Income Tax Credit', which would increase the % of people not paying taxes, while repealing and replacing Obamacare tax subsidies with "tax credits" (i.e. tax subsidies under a different name).
That's just if you're a GOPer. What should be scaring voters of any kind is Rubio's call to eliminate all taxes on capital gains. In other words, folks like Romney who paid ~13.7%, already less than many of us in the middle class, would be paying 0%, while those EARNING income will be picking up the tab paying higher taxes. Of course, we can always count on the small town/rural blue collar GOPer to vote against their own interests.
That's just qualifications. Heck, Rubio is even talking about expanding programs such as the 'Earned Income Tax Credit', which would increase the % of people not paying taxes, while repealing and replacing Obamacare tax subsidies with "tax credits" (i.e. tax subsidies under a different name).
That's just if you're a GOPer. What should be scaring voters of any kind is Rubio's call to eliminate all taxes on capital gains. In other words, folks like Romney who paid ~13.7%, already less than many of us in the middle class, would be paying 0%, while those EARNING income will be picking up the tab paying higher taxes. Of course, we can always count on the small town/rural blue collar GOPer to vote against their own interests.
4
I know it utterly pains the intelligentsia, liberal and conservative alike, that their think-tank ideas, which are really nothing more than vast rationalizations for why people like them should be considered intelligentsia and thereby remain closely interspersed among the corridors of power, are not popular among the American middle class, who still have a vote even if they have little in the way of disposable income that would allow them the time to pontificate on heady matters of state.
The beauty of this republican democracy is that people still get to vote and every one of their votes counts just as much as anyone else's, even if it is not tinctured with rarified insights of the people who think they know what's good for them.
The Republican establishment may be horrified at the prospect of nominating Trump, preferring instead a Rubio or Cruz. But that's only because they are terrified at the prospect of having a candidate who is not beholden to them for his power. It's the same as how the Democrats feel about the possibility of nominating a Sanders.
But the little guys are onto the charades played by the party establishments. If I could vote in both primaries, I'd vote for Trump and for Sanders, if only for the disruptive effect a Trump v Sanders race would have on both parties.
The beauty of this republican democracy is that people still get to vote and every one of their votes counts just as much as anyone else's, even if it is not tinctured with rarified insights of the people who think they know what's good for them.
The Republican establishment may be horrified at the prospect of nominating Trump, preferring instead a Rubio or Cruz. But that's only because they are terrified at the prospect of having a candidate who is not beholden to them for his power. It's the same as how the Democrats feel about the possibility of nominating a Sanders.
But the little guys are onto the charades played by the party establishments. If I could vote in both primaries, I'd vote for Trump and for Sanders, if only for the disruptive effect a Trump v Sanders race would have on both parties.
5
"In the G.O.P., crank doctrines in economics and elsewhere aren’t bubbling up from below, they’re being imposed from the top down."
Exactly! This is fraud and corruption emanating from the top of the food chain and percolating through the right wing media to the bottom of the food chain. It's a corrupt aristocracy that revels in its arrogance and deception - insolent men (and women) who revel in their insolence.
The Republican Party has become a criminal enterprise and openly seditious. Their aim is to own every available market for goods and services and to establish their puppets in the channels of governance so that private profits will top the priority list of values.
Let's drop the pretense that they have any interest in the common good and restore limits to the influence of big money in our electoral process. The SCOTUS decision in "Citizen's United vs FEC" opened the door to unlimited spending by plutocrats.
Our democracy is badly damaged when the inalienable right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is on the auction block and subject to revocation by a CEO without a face or a name because a few of the guardians of liberty are bought and paid for.
Exactly! This is fraud and corruption emanating from the top of the food chain and percolating through the right wing media to the bottom of the food chain. It's a corrupt aristocracy that revels in its arrogance and deception - insolent men (and women) who revel in their insolence.
The Republican Party has become a criminal enterprise and openly seditious. Their aim is to own every available market for goods and services and to establish their puppets in the channels of governance so that private profits will top the priority list of values.
Let's drop the pretense that they have any interest in the common good and restore limits to the influence of big money in our electoral process. The SCOTUS decision in "Citizen's United vs FEC" opened the door to unlimited spending by plutocrats.
Our democracy is badly damaged when the inalienable right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is on the auction block and subject to revocation by a CEO without a face or a name because a few of the guardians of liberty are bought and paid for.
6
It will be interesting to see if Prof. Krugman re-states his oft-claimed zinger: that the center is being unfair in pointing to the loonies in both progressive and conservative camps as it's only the conservatives who are crazy.
It's certainly true that the Republicans are at the edge (if not over) the line of lunacy. This has provided a huge opportunity for the Democrats to own the center for decades.
Of course, the Democrats have now moved hard away from the Center and are also near the lunatic fringe.
I love how all the love for Prof. Krugman has turned to scorn on these comment boards as he has (honorably) remained consistent in his criticism irrespective if they are to his right or left.
It's certainly true that the Republicans are at the edge (if not over) the line of lunacy. This has provided a huge opportunity for the Democrats to own the center for decades.
Of course, the Democrats have now moved hard away from the Center and are also near the lunatic fringe.
I love how all the love for Prof. Krugman has turned to scorn on these comment boards as he has (honorably) remained consistent in his criticism irrespective if they are to his right or left.
2
The fight for the GOP nomination is not between two crazies and a moderate, as Paul Krugman makes clear.
With the GOP, we will be fighting it out between a guy who was willing to crater the global economy (again) by pushing for default, just to make a conservative point about the Fed and debt; a plastic puppet fronting some monied interest or another, whose aim is to double down on trickle down; and the reality star who cannot stop himself from trying to top his previous outrageous statement.
I'd have to pray for Tump, given those circumstances. Because I don't really know what he'd do, which is better right now than knowing what the other two *would* do.
Good times.
With the GOP, we will be fighting it out between a guy who was willing to crater the global economy (again) by pushing for default, just to make a conservative point about the Fed and debt; a plastic puppet fronting some monied interest or another, whose aim is to double down on trickle down; and the reality star who cannot stop himself from trying to top his previous outrageous statement.
I'd have to pray for Tump, given those circumstances. Because I don't really know what he'd do, which is better right now than knowing what the other two *would* do.
Good times.
9
Republicans have long engaged in the fantasy that tax cuts will magically pay for themselves The fact that this has never proven to be true (in Kansas or in the United States) is irrelevant to these "true believers", who never let a fact deter them.
10
It is true and yet at the same time intellectually lazy to catalog the many shortcomings of the Republican contenders.
The more important question: Why, after having experiencing eight years of George Bush and then eight years of Barack Obama, would a sizable chunk of U.S. citizens willingly go back to the former's well, again? Are we, the electorate, hard wired to shoot ourselves in the foot?
What gives?
The more important question: Why, after having experiencing eight years of George Bush and then eight years of Barack Obama, would a sizable chunk of U.S. citizens willingly go back to the former's well, again? Are we, the electorate, hard wired to shoot ourselves in the foot?
What gives?
7
The most recent NY Times article on the supply side economics test tube called Kansas and the massive budget shortfalls engineered by the Norquist acolyte Governor Sam Brownback was back in November 2015 under the tepid headline 'Kansas Revenue Less Than Expected'. Dr. Krugman, it appears you are a voice in the wilderness while other mainstream media sources (including your own) hesitate to denounce the obvious goal of Republican economic proposals: to further enrich the rich - at the expense of everyone else. There may be a few supply side true believers and Brownback may be one of them, the hail Milton Friedman, swoon before Ayn Rand crowd. But most establishment Republicans such as Paul Ryan know exactly what the hew and cry for defunding the federal government is all about: squeezing the social safety net to further fill the coffers of the uberwealthy. So some are cranks but most are just crooks.
10
What separates this Republican campaign from its predecessors? Nothing. Trump, Cruz, and Rubio make the same grandiose, unsubstantiated economic promises made by all those who vied for the presidency before them. Hillary's position that we make incremental improvements is far more credible.
6
You forgot Obama Care! He's going to repeal Obama Care and that will save us all from the oblivion that is pending should we continue it. What's really amazing about this piece is that the president delivered 43 million customers to the insurance industry on a silver platter, telling them they need to feed this beast or face a fine. The howling still has subsided and one of the beasts, United Health Care, even screwed that gift up saying it can't make moey on it.
Only the Health care industry, which, incidentally, despite Republican claims to the contrary, rates at number 37 in the world, could mess up that kind of gift. Hand delivered customers, fearing a fine and they, being the Republican elite who own and runt he companies, still can't make it work.
And so, Mr. Trump, who has no idea of what he's talking about on this issue, is in the lead, again, saying competition is the key, not knowing, of course, that competition is the key to the exchanges that the industry can't make work. Don't mess with my Medicare!!!!!
Only the Health care industry, which, incidentally, despite Republican claims to the contrary, rates at number 37 in the world, could mess up that kind of gift. Hand delivered customers, fearing a fine and they, being the Republican elite who own and runt he companies, still can't make it work.
And so, Mr. Trump, who has no idea of what he's talking about on this issue, is in the lead, again, saying competition is the key, not knowing, of course, that competition is the key to the exchanges that the industry can't make work. Don't mess with my Medicare!!!!!
5
Point is well taken that when politicians say they are doing "what the American people want", its usually just an excuse to do what they want. If they were really doing the public's will, they wouldn't have to claim they were.
I do like the emphasis though on puncturing the so called reasonableness and moderation of Marco Rubio. His robotic strained emphatic repetition of rehearsed talking points has made it clear he is not so much an advocate, as a cheer leader.
I do think though, that the refusal of Prof Krugman and others, in boostering for Hillary while dismissing Bernie Sanders as unreasonable, represents a failure to squarely address the problem of private money in public elections, and the degree to which special interests (wall street among them) can woo public officials and the influence they have in policy outcomes, by offering them personal enrichment after they leave office.
I hope President Obama won't cave in to that temptation, and I can see him staying above the fray. But it should be obvious to any fair minded observer that Bill and Hillary cashed in like there's no tomorrow. I'm happy for them, I really am. I just think you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Having taken the money, Bill and Hillary have compromised themselves as public servants. In a "non Sanders year", I'd be thrilled with a Democratic nominee like Hillary Clinton. But with Bernie still running this marathon, I have to hope that America can still kick its "corruption habit".
I do like the emphasis though on puncturing the so called reasonableness and moderation of Marco Rubio. His robotic strained emphatic repetition of rehearsed talking points has made it clear he is not so much an advocate, as a cheer leader.
I do think though, that the refusal of Prof Krugman and others, in boostering for Hillary while dismissing Bernie Sanders as unreasonable, represents a failure to squarely address the problem of private money in public elections, and the degree to which special interests (wall street among them) can woo public officials and the influence they have in policy outcomes, by offering them personal enrichment after they leave office.
I hope President Obama won't cave in to that temptation, and I can see him staying above the fray. But it should be obvious to any fair minded observer that Bill and Hillary cashed in like there's no tomorrow. I'm happy for them, I really am. I just think you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Having taken the money, Bill and Hillary have compromised themselves as public servants. In a "non Sanders year", I'd be thrilled with a Democratic nominee like Hillary Clinton. But with Bernie still running this marathon, I have to hope that America can still kick its "corruption habit".
4
"Hillary Clinton, having demonstrated her staying power, is the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic nomination. " Really? You are probably patting yourself on the back for contributing to this illusion. For it is an illusion. I am referring to your February 19, 2016 column, "Varieties of Voodoo," featuring a link to an open letter from past CEA Chairs addressed to Senator Sanders and Professor Gerald Friedman criticizing his economic plan as it "runs against our party's best traditions." Interesting that this would appear the day before the Nevada Caucus. This is nothing but a Soviet-style smear campaign against a very popular Democratic presidential candidate. Secretary of State Clinton won Nevada, but it was not a landslide. The Bern has a message people can relate to, and if it it doesn't toe the party line so be it. This is what a democracy is all about, and why I am a Democrat. If you and the NYT want to make him the Shostakovich of the Democratic Party I'm game. I don't think Dmitri would object to this comparison.
6
It looks as if the Times has gone into campaign mode with hurrahs for Hillary at every turn. Yet on foreign policy Ms Clinton is scary, not only because known war mongers (to remain polite and subdued) like Kissinger or "the price is worth it" Albright are siding with her but also because she was instrumental in pushing for the Libya intervention (a disaster making things terrible in that country & region), she would make the tensions withRussia worse and she is siding with the far right in Israel, not the peace movement. Sanders is idealistic, maybe, but how does one roll back the power of finance and fight for more equality? Not by canceling Glass-Steagall not adopting crime bills that disproportionately affect African Americans. Even as far as gender is concerned Hillary bashed the women talking about Bill's adventures. There are many business as usual candidates and Hillary is the best of the lot. She is far to the right of Obama who did not rock the boat but at least pushed for some progressive programs (like Cuba & Iran).
As for Sanders and African Americans: who supported Jesse Jackson in the past?
As for Sanders and African Americans: who supported Jesse Jackson in the past?
6
An argument could possibly be made that tax cuts might stimulate the economy, but it seems that all tax cuts go to the wealthiest. Meanwhile the ranks of the poors swell, folks in the middle class hang on for dear life, lest they fall into poverty and the country is starting to look more and more like Mexico.
4
I guess little was learned from the Kansas Experiment. Can someone just ask Rubio why his tax cuts would work when the approach has always resulted failure!
The sad reality is the rhetoric coming from Trump and Cruz makes Rubio look sane. But there is also a starker truth, the GOP establishment really doesn't care about the health of the nation as long as they can profit and not have to pay for the privilege of living in a Republic, because that entails "paying for other people." They have the wherewithal to survive any economic catastrophe borne from their policies in their quest to reshape the Country to suite their goals. They will profit from the destruction they create, picking up the pieces at pennies on the dollar.
They've spent decades ensuring their base is ignorant, naive and gullible so they can be easily scared and manipulated in voting against their best interests.
Those they couldn't keep under their spell recoiled and the Tea Party was born. But therein lies the other problem, the GOP has been very successful in promoting the idea that Government doesn't work is too intrusive. Except when the GOP wants to barge into your bedroom or doctor's office whether it be demanding intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, or barring doctors in Florida from discussing guns in the home. There's ample proof they're wrong, that case needs to be made!
It's scary, Rubio could beat Clinton, so I am hoping either Trump or Cruz get the nod and Hillary doesn't get indicted.
The sad reality is the rhetoric coming from Trump and Cruz makes Rubio look sane. But there is also a starker truth, the GOP establishment really doesn't care about the health of the nation as long as they can profit and not have to pay for the privilege of living in a Republic, because that entails "paying for other people." They have the wherewithal to survive any economic catastrophe borne from their policies in their quest to reshape the Country to suite their goals. They will profit from the destruction they create, picking up the pieces at pennies on the dollar.
They've spent decades ensuring their base is ignorant, naive and gullible so they can be easily scared and manipulated in voting against their best interests.
Those they couldn't keep under their spell recoiled and the Tea Party was born. But therein lies the other problem, the GOP has been very successful in promoting the idea that Government doesn't work is too intrusive. Except when the GOP wants to barge into your bedroom or doctor's office whether it be demanding intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, or barring doctors in Florida from discussing guns in the home. There's ample proof they're wrong, that case needs to be made!
It's scary, Rubio could beat Clinton, so I am hoping either Trump or Cruz get the nod and Hillary doesn't get indicted.
9
Voting for any of the Republican candidates is a form of national suicide. Many of the middle aged depressed whites who are considering actual suicide are ready to slink into the voting booths and take the country down with their insane choices.
7
The policies of Trump, Cruz and Rubio are pretty much the same- all rotten. The reason the GOP establishment likes Rubio is that they know he can be totally manipulated by big donors. The same goes for Cruz but they don't support Cruz because they find him personally unlikeable- not because they dislike his policies. Trump is their worst nightmare because he doesn't rely on PAC money- yet- and they cannot control him because he is not relying on Koch brothers 'et al money.
Of the three of them- Trump is the least objectionable- but also a crazy person- which explains his appeal to the GOP base.
Of the three of them- Trump is the least objectionable- but also a crazy person- which explains his appeal to the GOP base.
5
What Trump has taught us is that the highest value of the GOP primary electorate is demonizing non-whites. So long as you do that well nothing else matters.
5
While Marco Rubio is spouting nonsense supply-side economics, Ted Cruz is announcing (or his father is, anyway) that he is chosen by God to usher in the end times when all the money is given to the 1%. Really. He's a whole lot scarier than Trump and we can be thankful that he has no social skills to make himself attractive to any but the certifiably insane.
6
Yet so much of the coverage of this election remains focused on a horse race mentality. Thanks for your continued analysis based on numbers, Dr. Krugman.
4
Here, we have yet another thoughtful analysis on the incompetency of an unaccomplished freshman senator touting disastrous tax cuts for wealthy investors. These ridiculous economic policies are reminiscent of Reagan trickle down budget busters that we continue to grapple with. This, coupled with his disastrous social engineering of reversing marriage equality and Roe v. Wade based in religious fanaticism, will spell a certain doom for our country's infrastructure, security and individual freedom.
7
Do not insult the common sense of average voters - Trump is a successful businessman and in the business world bully can not survive. What Trump say in the Primary had no bearing how he will execute his presidency. All Joe voters understand this simple truth. The support of Trump comes from his authenticity not for his talking points. Rubio is the master of parroting the talking points. This primary is the test of Republican voters of their common sense understanding of human psycology.
1
Finally, a column that nails Marco Rubio for the far-from-moderate he really is. But Dr. Krugman errs when he ascribes Trump's rise to the suggestion that "most Republican voters don't actually support much of the party's official orthodoxy." Trump, in his victories in atypical Iowa and South Carolina, hasn't won the votes of more than 35 per cent of the Republican primary electorate - and apparently those voters are supporting his "fearless" personality rather than anything substantive he actually says (which is zero). Watch Rubio, manipulated by his corporate handlers, inch closer to the center on immigration, diplomacy, climate change, and even Obamacare, while holding fast on tax cuts for the wealthy, which is all his handlers really care about. He's Romney redux - without the experience.
5
Exactly who besides the New York Times and corrupt super delegates made Hillary Clinton the "overwhelming favorite" for the Democratic nomination?
In every poll I've seen, she loses handily to Donald Trump and the other leading Republican candidates, while all of them are trounced by Bernie Sanders.
And here I thought your columns were fact-based. Silly me!
In every poll I've seen, she loses handily to Donald Trump and the other leading Republican candidates, while all of them are trounced by Bernie Sanders.
And here I thought your columns were fact-based. Silly me!
9
While I concur that it appears to be true that the GOP's base is not much concerned about party orthodoxy, the good people of Kansas did re-elect Governor Brownback even after he demonstrated conclusively that Republican economics is a total disaster. Whether from ignorance or lack of interest in economics, the base will vote for Rubio if he emerges as the GOP's nominee. What is most disconcerting is that of the three remaining viable GOP candidates, Rubio has the best chance of defeating Clinton.
2
It seems that all the GOP candidates want to eliminate the Estate Tax and balance the budget. The worst of them want to eliminate the Estate tax first.
3
Kid Scario vs. Trumpbabble.
No engendering of America on the world stage as this combo dupes
their way across the political landscape.
No engendering of America on the world stage as this combo dupes
their way across the political landscape.
1
Granted, Rubio as president (he doesn't deserve the uppercase "P") of the United States can only present his tax plan wishes to Congress for their consideration, examination, manipulation, escalation, desecration...all we are sayiiiing, is this guy's a dunce.
Rubio is the Scarecrow of Oz. No original thoughts come out of his head via his larynx, oropharynx, and piehole. His brain is as advanced as an 8-track tape: no beginning, no end, just a continuous loop of blather popped into a slot, hidden in that head of perfect hair, by his handlers, so beautifully exposed by Chris Christy: Interrupt him and he can't pick up his train of thought where he left off but must rewind to the start. (My dad once tortured a door-to-door encyclopedia peddler by asking the guy a question twice during his sales spiel and noticed this behavior. When Dad interrupted a third time at the same point in the presentation, the man wordlessly closed his case and left.)
Rubio doesn't understand simple addition and subtraction, if his handling of his personal finances is any indication. And he has shown he is unable to distinguish between credit cards issued TO him for his own purchases instead of FOR him for political or business purposes. How hard is it to put them in separate areas in his wallet?
Cruz may well be the Republican's best last gasp. I can see how he could win, especially against Hillary, thanks to Mencken's observation about underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
Rubio is the Scarecrow of Oz. No original thoughts come out of his head via his larynx, oropharynx, and piehole. His brain is as advanced as an 8-track tape: no beginning, no end, just a continuous loop of blather popped into a slot, hidden in that head of perfect hair, by his handlers, so beautifully exposed by Chris Christy: Interrupt him and he can't pick up his train of thought where he left off but must rewind to the start. (My dad once tortured a door-to-door encyclopedia peddler by asking the guy a question twice during his sales spiel and noticed this behavior. When Dad interrupted a third time at the same point in the presentation, the man wordlessly closed his case and left.)
Rubio doesn't understand simple addition and subtraction, if his handling of his personal finances is any indication. And he has shown he is unable to distinguish between credit cards issued TO him for his own purchases instead of FOR him for political or business purposes. How hard is it to put them in separate areas in his wallet?
Cruz may well be the Republican's best last gasp. I can see how he could win, especially against Hillary, thanks to Mencken's observation about underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
5
I have real concerns about Rubio's character and truthfulness. When he ran for the Senate in FL he fabricated a storyline that his father fled Cuba to escape Fidel Castro's rule. It turns out that his father left before Castro was even in power!
5
This Bernie can do no wrong, Hillary can do no right, PK is a traitor stuff is getting pretty creepy. I'm seeing a rigidity and intolerance on my beloved left that's unsettling. What's the strategy to be if Hillary gets the nod and all we've done is fatally wound her against whichever monstrosity the Republicans choose? Bernie's a great guy, but if he comes out second, what comes next? Think about it.
7
Marco Rubio has recently been exposed as a prop by the Republican establishment. Their last hope of defeating Donald Trump, he has been shown only to be adept at repeating overly rehearsed lines. The fact that media pundits do not question his policies further enables him to pull the wool over the public's eye in masquerading as a sensible moderate. Chris Christie did the country a favor in revealing that the emperor has no clothes and the fact that the establishment had to attempt to dress mutton as lamb with this underachieving, intellectual light weight bares little hope for the future of the party.
5
It's not about what Trump and Rubio are saying, which is the typical Republican cure-all solution of tax cuts at home and militancy abroad. It's about how Hillary and Bernie are trying to top each other with calls for more government-subsidized healthcare, college, Social Security and other social (Socialist?) welfare programs. Class warfare is back. And the smart money -- from the guys who already have a few homes and a yacht or two -- will be on the Republican candidate, even if it's Ted Cruz, who wants to end federal government as we know it and return to the Golden Age of the Roaring (pre-Depression) Twenties and Reaganomics.
1
Finally, an understandable answer to "What's the Matter with Kansas?" Why is ii that so many people vote against their own economic interests? Because they don't actually care; only the elite thirsting for power care.
3
"Knowledge bad. Economics bad. Experience bad. Aggressive Ignorance is good." Rubio rewrites the last scene from George Orwell's "Animal Farm," where the pigs and the humans are all smoking cigars while sitting around the kitchen table and looking in through the kitchen window, they all look the same.
2
I have commented elsewhere on Rubio's foreign policy claims. In summary, had Rubio been alive at the time, I think he would have been on the wrong side of history with respect to every major post-WWII foreign policy decision, from Truman's time to the present (and he probably doesn't know why).
As regards domestic/economic policy, from what I can tell he would have opposed FDR during the Great Depression, and likely would have joined the southerners in supporting the Conservative Manifesto of 1937.
What would Trump do? Who knows? But Rubio is no sensible alternative.
As regards domestic/economic policy, from what I can tell he would have opposed FDR during the Great Depression, and likely would have joined the southerners in supporting the Conservative Manifesto of 1937.
What would Trump do? Who knows? But Rubio is no sensible alternative.
4
Oddly, word in this column that brought me up short was "man." Of the terms used to describe Marco Rubio, "man" seems most inappropriate.
I admit to being solicitous of "man." To me, it is a word that you earn---nothing Kipling-esque, but an accrual of achievements, qualities, and character.
All American men, although they don't acknowledge it, have to stamp a "man-card." Men know what it is, and what's on it. At our social interactions among new acquaintances men exchange these cards as review them as the basis of further interaction.
By what measure has Marco Rubio deserved the appellation "man?" He went from coddled, pampered son to professional office-seeker. He expects the people around him to sacrifice for his advancement, but he sacrifices nothing, achieves nothing, builds nothing. Marco Rubio is a forty-ish man-child, desperate for a position he can never fill. Taken alone, he would be laughable. In this current race, with these people, he actually blends in. Sad.
I admit to being solicitous of "man." To me, it is a word that you earn---nothing Kipling-esque, but an accrual of achievements, qualities, and character.
All American men, although they don't acknowledge it, have to stamp a "man-card." Men know what it is, and what's on it. At our social interactions among new acquaintances men exchange these cards as review them as the basis of further interaction.
By what measure has Marco Rubio deserved the appellation "man?" He went from coddled, pampered son to professional office-seeker. He expects the people around him to sacrifice for his advancement, but he sacrifices nothing, achieves nothing, builds nothing. Marco Rubio is a forty-ish man-child, desperate for a position he can never fill. Taken alone, he would be laughable. In this current race, with these people, he actually blends in. Sad.
5
Expect to hear the constant mantra through this campaign from Republicans about the desperate for 4% annual GDP growth, and how getting rid of taxes and those pesky regulations (like clean water) will be the ticket. If Senator Rubio makes it to the oval office expect to hear him downplay the debt and deficits, because that is the only way imaginable that gets us to 4% growth. I expect Republicans to do what they are best at: spending massive amounts of money on everything (especially defense), and not paying for it. But, if you flood enough unpaid for spending into the economy you certainly get 4% growth. That's the plan.
3
I have always respected you, Professor Krugman, for your columns on economics here and abroad, however, I am shocked at your blatant pushing for support of a Clinton presidency. I find that this puts you in the same category as that of the corporate oligarchs, who are ruling this country. I am so disappointed. Shame on you!
5
After the South Carolina primary I was confused to hear Mr. Rubio give what sounded an awful lot like a victory speech. Hello? You lost? In fact you were trounced? Mr. Trump got all the delegates.
It does appear that we are headed for Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump. When one listens to the two speak about foreign policy, economic or domestic policy or any policy issue it is hard to think that Mr. Trump has a chance. Let's hope that Hillary has coattails enough to take back the senate and significantly alter the makeup of the house.
It does appear that we are headed for Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump. When one listens to the two speak about foreign policy, economic or domestic policy or any policy issue it is hard to think that Mr. Trump has a chance. Let's hope that Hillary has coattails enough to take back the senate and significantly alter the makeup of the house.
9
But that's the nut of the problem, isn't it. The rank and file Republicans have been kept in check for decades by the Party Elite whispering songs of theocratic social issues in their ears. And once in office, because they don't care about social issues unless they are somehow tied to higher revenue (Hobby Lobby), they've more or less done nothing.
And you can fool some of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
The Republican rank and file have every right to be angry. I'd be angry too. However while they are burning down the country to get even, I and many others how don't have a dog in their hunt, live here too.
No solution here. Just a heartfelt observation that some of these folks on both side of the aisle recognize you can't there from where they want to take the country. It's just not possible to rebuild from total wreckage.
And you can fool some of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
The Republican rank and file have every right to be angry. I'd be angry too. However while they are burning down the country to get even, I and many others how don't have a dog in their hunt, live here too.
No solution here. Just a heartfelt observation that some of these folks on both side of the aisle recognize you can't there from where they want to take the country. It's just not possible to rebuild from total wreckage.
3
Marco Rubio can't manage his personal finances, let alone be responsible for America's.
11
From a low energy guy to a used car salesman aka Rubio, Florida wants to dump to America another know nothing individual. I am amazed to see how so little it takes to become a national figure and have the possibility of becoming President. Where are the serious people?
11
Mr. Krugman has written several columns about how Hillary Clinton is the reasonable choice for the Democrats yet describes Trump as a crazy guy.
It is true Trump has been all over the political map with regard to his positions but then so has Hillary. She's been for the TPP and then against it. She was not a progressive and now she is.
And let's not forget the elephant in the room (no pun intended): her vote on the Iraq war. Yes, she has apologized but I haven't seen that bring one of our dead servicemen back to life or enable those crippled by wounds to walk again. When that happens and when she explains how she decided other people's children should go to fight and die yet her's should stay safely at home, maybe I'll back her.
It is true Trump has been all over the political map with regard to his positions but then so has Hillary. She's been for the TPP and then against it. She was not a progressive and now she is.
And let's not forget the elephant in the room (no pun intended): her vote on the Iraq war. Yes, she has apologized but I haven't seen that bring one of our dead servicemen back to life or enable those crippled by wounds to walk again. When that happens and when she explains how she decided other people's children should go to fight and die yet her's should stay safely at home, maybe I'll back her.
2
Ahhhhh, yes, here comes Mr. Krugman--with yet another cookie-cutter piece putting forth the same, tired arguments--that debts and deficits do not matter, and that fiscally conservative Republicans are all idiots. Thoughtful analysis finds this tiresome, repetitive--and mostly a bunch of hooey.
But since he has raised the subject of cranks, let's examine Mr. Krugman's beliefs.
Although Mr. Krugman decries supply-side theory as "voo-doo economics", what are we to think of his advocacy of "shampoo economics" (borrow, print, spend, repeat)?
A) Is it really true that we can stimulate the economy by artificial means, when there is no legitimate demand behind it---or does the stimulating effect of borrow and printed money run out when the money is gone? (It does.)
B) As interest on the debt continues to climb (which Obama will have doubled in 8 years), and those payments continue to consume a larger percentage of the budget, won't that leave less and less money to fix roads and bridges? In other words--isn't debt the "anti-stimulus"?
C) If we reduce the size of government and leave more money in the hands of consumers, won't Americans spend or invest it--or will they stuff it into mattresses? Won't Americans will put that money to work in the economy--(even those evil and greedy one-percenters) providing real and legitimate "stimulus" to our economy? (They will).
D) Have you ever considered, the position we would currently be in--if we had zero national debt?
But since he has raised the subject of cranks, let's examine Mr. Krugman's beliefs.
Although Mr. Krugman decries supply-side theory as "voo-doo economics", what are we to think of his advocacy of "shampoo economics" (borrow, print, spend, repeat)?
A) Is it really true that we can stimulate the economy by artificial means, when there is no legitimate demand behind it---or does the stimulating effect of borrow and printed money run out when the money is gone? (It does.)
B) As interest on the debt continues to climb (which Obama will have doubled in 8 years), and those payments continue to consume a larger percentage of the budget, won't that leave less and less money to fix roads and bridges? In other words--isn't debt the "anti-stimulus"?
C) If we reduce the size of government and leave more money in the hands of consumers, won't Americans spend or invest it--or will they stuff it into mattresses? Won't Americans will put that money to work in the economy--(even those evil and greedy one-percenters) providing real and legitimate "stimulus" to our economy? (They will).
D) Have you ever considered, the position we would currently be in--if we had zero national debt?
1
Of course Rubio is the stalking horse for cut-throats that they all have been since Reagan, but his is the "car hop" candidacy from Sunset Strip, the pretty face content with parking the fat cats' cars.
5
Putin gaining, Assad thriving, China falling, oil tanking, Iran conniving, gold dropping, paper money printing, real estate booming, refugees moving, nukes building, terror lurking. The President leaving us in this mess is a Democrat.
2
It is disappointing how many commenters state or strongly imply that Dr. Krugman is "pro-Hillary". Further, said commenters continue to imply that his "pro-Hillary" opinion arises from a personal bias by Dr. Krugman and not facts in evidence.
From this column alone, this is what we know: 1) Marco Rubio is the Republican establishment favorite; 2) Mr. Rubio proposes to completely eliminating taxes on investment income, freeing hedge fund managers from the pesky nuisance of taxation; 3) Mr. Rubio believes that his proposed tax cuts would pay for themselves as they will promote economic growth. My goodness, where have we seen that before? And finally, 4) Mr. Rubio seeks a balanced-budget amendment. In these times of chronic economic torpor, nothing could be more toxic to the state of the U.S. economy.
These four facts are strong reasons to back the most electable Democratic candidate. Senator Sanders has a difficult path to the Democratic nomination and Dr. Krugman knows this. Please examine this information, and pause before any further accusations are made that the 2008 Nobel Prize winner is advocating for any Presidential primary candidate based on anything other than irrefutable truths.
From this column alone, this is what we know: 1) Marco Rubio is the Republican establishment favorite; 2) Mr. Rubio proposes to completely eliminating taxes on investment income, freeing hedge fund managers from the pesky nuisance of taxation; 3) Mr. Rubio believes that his proposed tax cuts would pay for themselves as they will promote economic growth. My goodness, where have we seen that before? And finally, 4) Mr. Rubio seeks a balanced-budget amendment. In these times of chronic economic torpor, nothing could be more toxic to the state of the U.S. economy.
These four facts are strong reasons to back the most electable Democratic candidate. Senator Sanders has a difficult path to the Democratic nomination and Dr. Krugman knows this. Please examine this information, and pause before any further accusations are made that the 2008 Nobel Prize winner is advocating for any Presidential primary candidate based on anything other than irrefutable truths.
9
Donald Trump is the broken watch that may be right twice a day, and occasionally he states the truth. He is immediately labeled not a conservative because he states it is wrong to not have people die in the streets, that the Bush War and 9/11 were failures. That the rich should be taxed. Given his New York pedigree he is probably not a Bible thumping racist, homophobe, misogynist. Seems contrary on the misogyny, but his sister is on the Court of Appeals, he has given some support to Planned Parenthood.
Contrast this with Rubio. He wants to give the rich tax breaks, and anti-gay, and anti women. A complete toady of the rich, and the bible thumpers.
I hope Trump is the nominee and Hillary beats the dickens out of him and he brings the party down. But I would rather have Trump and his inane comments than having Rubio selling us out and working from the inside to destroy the country.
Contrast this with Rubio. He wants to give the rich tax breaks, and anti-gay, and anti women. A complete toady of the rich, and the bible thumpers.
I hope Trump is the nominee and Hillary beats the dickens out of him and he brings the party down. But I would rather have Trump and his inane comments than having Rubio selling us out and working from the inside to destroy the country.
10
With a puppet as transparent as Rubio, it's almost as if the oligarchs want to demonstrate humiliatingly how firmly they pull the strings. From Reagan to Bush to Rubio they demand that the executive branch be occupied by a ventriloquist dummy utterly incapable of thinking for himself.
12
Phew, finally someone has said out loud the obvious. The choice, in that it has much to do with choice, of Rubio as the "establishment" candidate appears to be entirely based on his talent at parroting a list of knee jerk, dated, right wing canards that satisfy every right wing focus group, all wrapped in one smiling, handsome poster boy of jabberwocky. Even worse, when he goes off his alarming script, he's even scarier. Take his suggestion, based on a completely contrived video, that the likely outcome of the unveiling of this fact free, fallacious "expose" would be women choosing to get pregnant to have abortions for the fabulous opportunity to sell the fetal tissue (that happens to be donated?!? One would think that as a Democrat, I would be heartened by the obvious unsuitability of the GOP frontrunners, but as an American, I find it deeply unsettling.
11
Paul Krugman has once again deftly illuminated an uncomfortable truth that surely provides the backdrop for Republican establishmentarian nightmares: that the GOP's management team is not only divorced from reality, they're incompetent. Indeed, they remind me of the old Roadrunner cartoons, in which Wiley Coyote furiously chases his feathered dinner right off a cliff, realizing too late that, by his own actions, he's doomed.
Republican management chased a bogus economic theory for decades, dissembling and conning and bullying every feverish step of the way, until the theory exposed itself for what it truly is: a self-serving myth. Then, along comes a reckless former Democrat who is far more nimble with the means of myth-dispensing than the dull GOP bureaucrats could ever hope to be. So the former Democrat takes note of their cluelessness and sets off at a streaking pace, taunting them to chase him. And chase him they do, with the same smug arrogance that fueled their earlier, more successful pursuits of less nimble prey: by investing their future in another dull puppet with only a short playlist of spoonfed talking points for brains.
The last act of this drama will likely play out as did the last scenes in those old cartoons. The GOP will attempt to steal the nomination for their hand-picked stooge, and The Roadrunner will simply sidestep and go it on his own, then watch with glee as his pursuers race off a cliff and destroy themselves.
Republican management chased a bogus economic theory for decades, dissembling and conning and bullying every feverish step of the way, until the theory exposed itself for what it truly is: a self-serving myth. Then, along comes a reckless former Democrat who is far more nimble with the means of myth-dispensing than the dull GOP bureaucrats could ever hope to be. So the former Democrat takes note of their cluelessness and sets off at a streaking pace, taunting them to chase him. And chase him they do, with the same smug arrogance that fueled their earlier, more successful pursuits of less nimble prey: by investing their future in another dull puppet with only a short playlist of spoonfed talking points for brains.
The last act of this drama will likely play out as did the last scenes in those old cartoons. The GOP will attempt to steal the nomination for their hand-picked stooge, and The Roadrunner will simply sidestep and go it on his own, then watch with glee as his pursuers race off a cliff and destroy themselves.
9
Of course, we've seen this movie, and we know how it ends. George W. Bush (or his puppeteers) stole the election, cut taxes, started a big war and created the huge mess that we're still dealing with. Tens of millions of Americans don't have short memories; they don't have memories. What memories they have--that Reagan was a great man--are cockeyed. Sane people said, Don't elect Nixon, he's paranoid; don't elect Reagan, he an actor; don't elect W., he's not qualified. And 'We the people' elected all of them. Twice each. For our trouble, we got a decade of inflation in the 70s, the end of the US as a creditor nation, the S&L meltdown, the Iraq War, the Great Financial Crisis, and a stock market boom that exacerbated inequality. No reason to believe we won't do it again.
14
Nasty speech apparently puts off "serious people" and the important media more than insane policy. Mark Twain and H.L. Mencken would not have been surprised.
4
There's a persistent notion that the Republican candidates are crazy, based on the fact that their economic proposals would be absolutely disastrous to 99% of the populace. Maybe 99.9%.
Crazy like a fox!
Dr. Krugman accurately notes that Marco Rubio is in thrall to the billionaires. That's equally true for the other Republican candidates (leaving out Trump for the moment).
What's really interesting to me is Rubio's repeated line to the effect that "Obama is intentionally ruining the country". Which is drawn directly from Fox News. And it is interesting because the Republican proposals are EXACTLY intended to ruin the country. For all the reasons that Krugman has described.
Rubio has adopted the tactic of accusing his opponent of that for which he is himself guilty. Very clever!
As for Trump, he seems mainly to care about himself: a super-narcissist in a room full of narcissists. His economic plan, so far, seems to be whatever pops into his head (and out of his mouth) at the moment. But it certainly is not in favor of the 99%.
Cruz is like Rubio, just with his selfish ambition more nakedly displayed.
All are demagogues, playing to the lowest emotional level in conservative-oriented voters who are indeed hurting financially, and deeply worried about the future.
But cranks they are not!
Crazy like a fox!
Dr. Krugman accurately notes that Marco Rubio is in thrall to the billionaires. That's equally true for the other Republican candidates (leaving out Trump for the moment).
What's really interesting to me is Rubio's repeated line to the effect that "Obama is intentionally ruining the country". Which is drawn directly from Fox News. And it is interesting because the Republican proposals are EXACTLY intended to ruin the country. For all the reasons that Krugman has described.
Rubio has adopted the tactic of accusing his opponent of that for which he is himself guilty. Very clever!
As for Trump, he seems mainly to care about himself: a super-narcissist in a room full of narcissists. His economic plan, so far, seems to be whatever pops into his head (and out of his mouth) at the moment. But it certainly is not in favor of the 99%.
Cruz is like Rubio, just with his selfish ambition more nakedly displayed.
All are demagogues, playing to the lowest emotional level in conservative-oriented voters who are indeed hurting financially, and deeply worried about the future.
But cranks they are not!
11
Republicans are always repeating the tax cut mantra, brainwashing us, but, the reality is that cuts in Republican policies like reduced oil prices and less warfare is what has stimulated the economy.
1
Trump isn't relying on large donors, is hated by the Republican estabalishment and his tax cut plan is nearly as large and favorable to the rich as Rubio's is. This fact pretty much destroys Krugman's argument that supply-side economics is "being imposed from the top down", so Krugman conveniently doesn't mention it.
As an aside, there is also a guy named Ted Cruz running, who is actually ahead of Rubio in delegates and national polls, so it's actually a 3 man race. I suppose this fact isn't mentioned either for the sake of making a neater (and false) argument.
As an aside, there is also a guy named Ted Cruz running, who is actually ahead of Rubio in delegates and national polls, so it's actually a 3 man race. I suppose this fact isn't mentioned either for the sake of making a neater (and false) argument.
Does anybody think Trump can get more than 50% in any one-on-one election? I don't. His hard core of 30% to 35% in the GOP world is enough to 'win' polls and primaries with many opponents, but 65% to 70% of that pool are not for him.
If he slips through the GOP process and wins the GOP nomination, the GOP is doomed in the general election IMHO - I don't see him ever getting to 50% or more.
If he slips through the GOP process and wins the GOP nomination, the GOP is doomed in the general election IMHO - I don't see him ever getting to 50% or more.
3
Your forgot to include Rubio's "positive" attributes; he is young, handsome, and Hispanic. He is also a devout catholic, who believes, unlike JFK, that his "faith" must inform his political policies.
Suffice it to say the time when devout Catholicism was a political liability has long since passed, especially since the Evangelical wing of the GOP hold many of the same "moral" views on social issues as that espoused by strict adherence to orthodox catholic dogma.
Rubio's trifecta of being young, handsome, and Hispanic is a formidable combination among today's social media addicted, ADD affliced, superficial electorate; after all, looking good, is 90% of the battle. And if you don't think looking good is a prerequisite for being elected president today just ask Bernie Sanders, who is considered unelectable, which I believe has a lot to do with his appearance.
Rubio's religious devotion is not only a strong factor in his GOP appeal, the fact that he is a devout Hispanic Catholic may also draw a substantial number of Hispanic voters, even if Rubio believes that only Cubans are exempt from immigration laws.
Rubio may be kook, but he is a good looking kook, and in today's political environment that means a lot.
Suffice it to say the time when devout Catholicism was a political liability has long since passed, especially since the Evangelical wing of the GOP hold many of the same "moral" views on social issues as that espoused by strict adherence to orthodox catholic dogma.
Rubio's trifecta of being young, handsome, and Hispanic is a formidable combination among today's social media addicted, ADD affliced, superficial electorate; after all, looking good, is 90% of the battle. And if you don't think looking good is a prerequisite for being elected president today just ask Bernie Sanders, who is considered unelectable, which I believe has a lot to do with his appearance.
Rubio's religious devotion is not only a strong factor in his GOP appeal, the fact that he is a devout Hispanic Catholic may also draw a substantial number of Hispanic voters, even if Rubio believes that only Cubans are exempt from immigration laws.
Rubio may be kook, but he is a good looking kook, and in today's political environment that means a lot.
1
Some comments mention that there is no reason to vote. For the sake of the future, I would strongly urge a straight Democrat vote. The next Supreme Court justice will have the decisive voice in the future of the USA. Thus, a Dem president and a Dem senate are needed. Anyone who believe the GOP propaganda is ignoring the history of 2000-2008 and the resistance of the House (since 2010) and Senate (since 2014) to world warming, meaningful stimulus programs and economic inequality. This next election is critical for the future of the world.
11
The rise of Republican fringe candidates is a result of the state of confusion among voters who have the illusion that these candidates will return order to their world.
4
Dr. Krugman sticks to the candidate's economic policies, and appropriately so. But let us not overlook Senator Rubio's denial of climate change. The state of the economy will matter little when the state of the ecology is beyond remedy.
8
Thank you, Paul Krugman. I've been saying for months now that although Trump is a despicable narcissist, he's preferable to Cruz or Rubio, because he doesn't mean most of what he says. If nominated, he'll veer toward the center and if convenient stay there. Cruz is both a narcissistic sociopath and a true believer. The Marcobot is a creature of his designers, the rightwing 1 percenters. So, while I fervently hope for a Hillary victory, if we had to have one of the three GOP likelies, I'd take my chances with Trump.
8
Joseph Goebbels had a theory about lying: tell big ones. Trump has done him one better: tell a big truth, and folks will believe the big lies all the more readily. As Krugman has pointed out, the big truth "the Donald" has told is the truth of the disastrous Iraq War. It boggles my mind that the Republican "establishment" believes that any candidate who criticizes a former President belonging to the party (in this case, Bush 43) will suffer in the polls. But they do believe it, as except for Trump, no other candidate is willing to say what the facts reveal and most everyone believes about the Iraq invasion.
Trump, a business man, certainly saw this weakness in the Republican brand and saw how he could take over GOP, Inc. by offering something no one else was offering--some frank talk. In this way, the Republicans are themselves responsible for Trump's emergence in the party. People get tired of public figures ignoring the obvious. It insults their intelligence and inspires distrust.
The downside, of course, to Trump's willingness to tell such truths is of course his eagerness to tell big, irresponsible lies. His campaign has been nothing but a series of insults, exaggerations, and empty promises. He's a bully and a narcissist who seeks power because that's the next logical step after seeking money. But no one should be surprised that voters have gone for Trump: like a spoonful of sugar, the big truth helps the big lies go down easy.
Trump, a business man, certainly saw this weakness in the Republican brand and saw how he could take over GOP, Inc. by offering something no one else was offering--some frank talk. In this way, the Republicans are themselves responsible for Trump's emergence in the party. People get tired of public figures ignoring the obvious. It insults their intelligence and inspires distrust.
The downside, of course, to Trump's willingness to tell such truths is of course his eagerness to tell big, irresponsible lies. His campaign has been nothing but a series of insults, exaggerations, and empty promises. He's a bully and a narcissist who seeks power because that's the next logical step after seeking money. But no one should be surprised that voters have gone for Trump: like a spoonful of sugar, the big truth helps the big lies go down easy.
5
The Republicans brought us the great recession with high oil prices and wars that weighed heavily on the economy and citizens minds. The Democrats helped bring us a recovery which is still steadily improving the economy after 2008.
You have to admit there are cycles of boom and bust in the economy, being a normal historical fact. While the Democrats are nurturing the recovery, the Republicans are desperately trying to regain their reputation by claiming their policies are what leads to prosperity.
Simply put; the Democrat policies are good for the economy, and the Republican policies are a disaster.
Everyone wants to claim responsibility for the recovery. Inevitably we will reach a pinnacle of a boom time and the Republicans are desperate to appear as though their policies brought it about.
The Republican candidates are just riding the wave of prosperity trying to look good.
By the way; what's all this Trump talk of "Making America Great Again"?
We always were and are the greatest.
You have to admit there are cycles of boom and bust in the economy, being a normal historical fact. While the Democrats are nurturing the recovery, the Republicans are desperately trying to regain their reputation by claiming their policies are what leads to prosperity.
Simply put; the Democrat policies are good for the economy, and the Republican policies are a disaster.
Everyone wants to claim responsibility for the recovery. Inevitably we will reach a pinnacle of a boom time and the Republicans are desperate to appear as though their policies brought it about.
The Republican candidates are just riding the wave of prosperity trying to look good.
By the way; what's all this Trump talk of "Making America Great Again"?
We always were and are the greatest.
1
At this point, I can barely pay attention to the Republican primaries. Not that they're not important - they are, but it's sort of like what they used to say about a traffic accident happening: you can't look, but you can't not look.
Of much more interest is what's going on with the Democrats. Will Hillary's machine simply start to grind Sanders down, or will he be able to post some wins in upcoming states? I'm so fed up with the status quo that I won't be voting for Hillary under any circumstances regardless.
I"ve watched American politics become more stupid and less reality-based since Reagan won in 1980. I think what we're seeing now might just be as bad as it can get. It's hard to imagine anything worse.
Of much more interest is what's going on with the Democrats. Will Hillary's machine simply start to grind Sanders down, or will he be able to post some wins in upcoming states? I'm so fed up with the status quo that I won't be voting for Hillary under any circumstances regardless.
I"ve watched American politics become more stupid and less reality-based since Reagan won in 1980. I think what we're seeing now might just be as bad as it can get. It's hard to imagine anything worse.
143
The tea party revolution brought conservative up- starts like Cruz who didn't play ball with the old guard or maybe anyone and increased the divide of non-speaking camps and non-clapping state of the union attendees. I don't see Bernie's strong diplomatic suit and waiting until 2020 for Warren while Rome, (the Arctic) burns is a very dangerous proposition. For those of us who think it's the Supreme Court, stupid, I agree as their decisions relate to the most urgent need for climate policy. But sitting in Mass., mid- February, 60 degree weather with the tulips poking up and seeing my son in Montana will be in 70 degree weather this week, I want the closest thing to a diplomat I can get to make change as the clock is running out. For that I forgive Hillary her mistakes and vote for her many strengths.
8
Now that Trump has won South Carolina and Bush finally pulled out of the race, the Times ought to take a look at how much news and editorial copy it devoted to Bush, a candidate who consistently ran as an also ran but got pages and pages of Times coverage. Why?
The attitude that Krugman took toward the Friedman analysis of Sanders stimulus is bound to catch the attention of Trump! Krugman has consistently advocated a Keynesian stimulus approach to the Great Recession. And he is right.
When Bernie advocated such an approach and Clinton gave it the cold shoulder, Krugman attacked Bernie! The excuse was that his numbers didn't add up. How about the policies?
I invite all of you to revisit how Hitler dealt with the a Great Depession. Thank you Paul Krugman for saving the Republican Party.
The attitude that Krugman took toward the Friedman analysis of Sanders stimulus is bound to catch the attention of Trump! Krugman has consistently advocated a Keynesian stimulus approach to the Great Recession. And he is right.
When Bernie advocated such an approach and Clinton gave it the cold shoulder, Krugman attacked Bernie! The excuse was that his numbers didn't add up. How about the policies?
I invite all of you to revisit how Hitler dealt with the a Great Depession. Thank you Paul Krugman for saving the Republican Party.
3
You have convinced me - Trump is the lesser evil. I once thought it was Kasich, but if you analyse his policies as you have done Rubio's, he is just as much a Neanderthal.
6
Number crunching aside, one outcome seems clear. The 19th century construct of the political party teeters on its last legs. On one side a formerly grand old party is just the plaything of billionaires, while on the other a creaking machine expends its energy to nominate and elect a leader with little effort down ballot. Political consultants are guns for hires. GOTV operations can be organized on the internet. Social media can replace the infotainment complex we laughingly call journalism. Political parties are little more than totems.
1
Rubio’s most dangerous feature is having the backbone of overcooked spaghetti. When his immigration bill gets some heat he runs away screaming incoherently about Obama. When his tax plan is insufficiently helpful to the long suffering billionaire class, no problem! How many trillion would you like? A president this spineless is particularly distressing today, when he is being controlled by a pair of petulant children, one spoiled by years of indulgence, the other resentful from years of neglect. When a party is defined by a battle between paranoids angry and terrified of phantoms and infantile billionaires hurt that Americans are insufficiently sympathetic to the difficulty in maintaining the lifestyle of a minor Pharaoh, a leader like Rubio should be terrifying.
9
As a student, I studied how mad men took over governments, but could never really understand how their rantings could win over entire populations. Now I understand, and it is scary. The front-runner in the GOP contest does not speak in complete sentences, lacks specificity in his proposals and plays on the prejudices of his followers. His competitors merely echo the mantras of Libertarians who want to essentially eliminate government in order to privatize any function that can turn a profit. And those who seem to have the most to lose are the ones most vocal in their support. I am terrified.
12
Voters tuned in to a recent town hall event moderated by Anderson Cooper where he asked Rubio whether he would continue coaching his sons football team and how he met his wife. The answer to these questions apparently informs the electorate more than an examination of policy.
4
Rubio is worse. If he wins the GOP controls all 3 branches of government. If Trump wins, no party controls the executive branch.
5
I hope a new Supreme Court, whenever it happens, will reverse the disastrous Citizens United ruling. We cannot allow "candidates" to only pander to billionaire donors. It perverts the process by disenfranchising voters, the effect being like ruled by a monarchy again.
8
Mr. Trump wishes to capture the Republican nomination. Consequently, he must not discuss taxing the rich. After capturing the Republican flag, he will be addressing the general election then he may go on a crusade against the rich. How surprising would that be?
If he wins the general election, who knows what he'll do? He may support nude volleyball, or "no homework" for school children.
How can anyone stop a rascal with money?
If he wins the general election, who knows what he'll do? He may support nude volleyball, or "no homework" for school children.
How can anyone stop a rascal with money?
3
The typical Trump supporter evidently believes that everything Trump says is just a negotiating ploy.
6
I do not believe that Trump is electable as president but I find him to be the least scary of all possible Republican candidates. He is not beholden to the greedy billionaire-funded establishment cabal and he could, in fact, take the opportunity to create a legacy by doing the right things, especially taxing the one percenters. FDR was seen as a traitor to his class and ended up being one of our greatest presidents. I am not saying I hope Trump wins but I do believe the Republican alternatives are all far, far worse.
8
"If prediction markets (and most hardheaded analysis) are to be believed, Hillary Clinton, having demonstrated her staying power, is the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic nomination."
Your funny Paul Krugman. You mean those same "prediction markets" and so-called "hardheaded analysis" that has consistently been proven wrong. Sounds like you're genuflecting at the altar of your largest shareholder - Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim who became the NYTimes largest shareholder in Jan 2015. The same guy Clinton flew down to Mexico to sell herself to on or about Sept 1, 2014. See Bloomberg business press Sept 3, 2014. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Slim contributed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. (I wonder if the deal they made can have anything to do with Clinton's refusal to support the $15 per hour minimum wage.) In August 2015 the Clintons attempted to conceal the total amount of his contributions. Unknown is the amount of money Mr. Slim contributed to Super Pacs supporting Clinton’s campaign, but you can be almost certain Mr. Slim is working hard to ensure that Hillary “Wall Street” Clinton captures the White House. After all, he has made a sizable investment in Clinton’s run for the White House. Like Fox News, the NYTimes lacks credibility for providing accurate political news and analysis.
Your funny Paul Krugman. You mean those same "prediction markets" and so-called "hardheaded analysis" that has consistently been proven wrong. Sounds like you're genuflecting at the altar of your largest shareholder - Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim who became the NYTimes largest shareholder in Jan 2015. The same guy Clinton flew down to Mexico to sell herself to on or about Sept 1, 2014. See Bloomberg business press Sept 3, 2014. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Slim contributed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. (I wonder if the deal they made can have anything to do with Clinton's refusal to support the $15 per hour minimum wage.) In August 2015 the Clintons attempted to conceal the total amount of his contributions. Unknown is the amount of money Mr. Slim contributed to Super Pacs supporting Clinton’s campaign, but you can be almost certain Mr. Slim is working hard to ensure that Hillary “Wall Street” Clinton captures the White House. After all, he has made a sizable investment in Clinton’s run for the White House. Like Fox News, the NYTimes lacks credibility for providing accurate political news and analysis.
3
"If prediction markets (and most hardheaded analysis) are to be believed, Hillary Clinton, having demonstrated her staying power, is the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic nomination."
Translation: Mission Accomplished!
I remember the not so happy ending last time I heard the same message.
Translation: Mission Accomplished!
I remember the not so happy ending last time I heard the same message.
Great article. In America, nothing succeeds like excess, and last year's excess is too moderate. Onward and downward!
1
Thank you, Mr. Krugman, for pointing out the contradictions of the Rubio campaign. In many respects, Rubio channels the Cruz campaign with a marginally less serpentine face. His monetary and fiscal prescriptions lay bare the wrong-headed hypocrisy of the entire GOP economic platform.
It is hard to understand how an ideology could be so misguided for so long despite solid contrary evidence and still be taken seriously as a policy option. I guess this is what happens when elite interests have the biggest, baddest, loudest megaphone and the cash to pay for it.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
It is hard to understand how an ideology could be so misguided for so long despite solid contrary evidence and still be taken seriously as a policy option. I guess this is what happens when elite interests have the biggest, baddest, loudest megaphone and the cash to pay for it.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
5
Questionable and narrow results, claimed as victories by Hillary, from two caucus states does not make a trend and Dr. Krugman should know that.
1
All of the Republican candidates are scary. None will acknowledge believing in evolution; they all want to cut taxes with a broad ax; and they all want to build a billion plus dollar fence on a border with a net zero immigration sum.
They all (now that Rand Paul is out) want to jump into another war with ISIS/Daesh.
That means that we could well see another ten years in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and several other countries in North Africa and around the Persian Gulf. Those who "...fuel the army with the tools of the trade." (Country Joe McDonald) must be chomping at the bit thinking that their profits will be assured for another decade or more.
The Republican candidates are a little bit less united on social issues but be sure that women and minorities would have less progress towards equal rights than they've seen under Obama.
Business and Religion would have more say than well paid job programs and restoring the infrastructure.
In short: 'pie in the sky' Bernie or 'calculating' Hillary are both extremely better choices for President and naming the next Supreme Court Justices.
"It's the economy stupid." (Bill Clinton); and how it works for you rather than the privileged few.
They all (now that Rand Paul is out) want to jump into another war with ISIS/Daesh.
That means that we could well see another ten years in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and several other countries in North Africa and around the Persian Gulf. Those who "...fuel the army with the tools of the trade." (Country Joe McDonald) must be chomping at the bit thinking that their profits will be assured for another decade or more.
The Republican candidates are a little bit less united on social issues but be sure that women and minorities would have less progress towards equal rights than they've seen under Obama.
Business and Religion would have more say than well paid job programs and restoring the infrastructure.
In short: 'pie in the sky' Bernie or 'calculating' Hillary are both extremely better choices for President and naming the next Supreme Court Justices.
"It's the economy stupid." (Bill Clinton); and how it works for you rather than the privileged few.
5
Dr. Krugman:
Now your are even ignoring studies published in your own paper to try to ensure Clinton wins!
Your first sentence of this column begins with the phrase, "If prediction markets...But in June of 2015 this paper published an article entitled "Whats wrong with polling?" wherein polling and prediction markets were analyzed and found to be woefully inadequate due to cell phones and a shrinking participation rate of the public.
Had another swig of the Kool-Aid over the weekend, did you?
Now your are even ignoring studies published in your own paper to try to ensure Clinton wins!
Your first sentence of this column begins with the phrase, "If prediction markets...But in June of 2015 this paper published an article entitled "Whats wrong with polling?" wherein polling and prediction markets were analyzed and found to be woefully inadequate due to cell phones and a shrinking participation rate of the public.
Had another swig of the Kool-Aid over the weekend, did you?
3
PK, why don't you write about economics? Bernie is by far the best candidate running for president, I'm not sure why you support Hillary, but she is very unlikely to make meaningful changes and even less likely to make positive meaningful change.
2
Given that Dr. K dislikes any conceivable Republican candidate, what's the point of writing pieces like this? Perhaps he's running low on imagination, or is just tired of telling us how wonderful Obamacare is and will be.
As far as crank doctrines are concerned, there are many respected ecomomists who regard Krugman's prescriptions as being in that category. But being on that subject, perhaps an evaluation of Sanders' economis is in order as well. NYT readers in general will ignore anything written about the right's plans other than nodding.
As far as crank doctrines are concerned, there are many respected ecomomists who regard Krugman's prescriptions as being in that category. But being on that subject, perhaps an evaluation of Sanders' economis is in order as well. NYT readers in general will ignore anything written about the right's plans other than nodding.
Krugman doesn't appear to like any of the Republicans much. I don't either, but I wish he would focus on economics which is his strength. He could have made a whole column out of Rubio's economic policy fantasies. When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, and that's our supply siders.
Peculiar hair aside, it's not at all clear whether Trump would be a good president or not. Statements like "We're going to make America great again" provide no info on which to base a prediction. Regardless of whether he would be good or bad, I suspect he would be aggressive in making change.
Contrast that with Hillary, who states that only incremental change is possible. I suspect that Clinton, who is a "very serious person," would give us change so incremental we might not even notice it.
Those with advantages in the current system are unlikely to willingly give them up. American voters are getting very impatient. I think Trump wins if it's Trump v. Clinton, but it's hard to say if that would be good or bad.
Peculiar hair aside, it's not at all clear whether Trump would be a good president or not. Statements like "We're going to make America great again" provide no info on which to base a prediction. Regardless of whether he would be good or bad, I suspect he would be aggressive in making change.
Contrast that with Hillary, who states that only incremental change is possible. I suspect that Clinton, who is a "very serious person," would give us change so incremental we might not even notice it.
Those with advantages in the current system are unlikely to willingly give them up. American voters are getting very impatient. I think Trump wins if it's Trump v. Clinton, but it's hard to say if that would be good or bad.
I appreciate Dr. Krugman's analysis of Rubio's economics and I'd like to agree that Republican votes for Mr. Trump suggest that the rank and file have departed from party orthodoxy in favor of Trump's odd populist rhetoric on taxes, social security, healthcare etc.. Of course, any thinking person (you know, the ones that made Adlai Stevenson president twice) sees there's no way from here to there in Trump's plans, and that undermines Krugman's comment on what his appeal reveals. A large segment of Republican voters (and maybe national voters) have simply turned against the elites and have "learned" to reject facts and hate government (Bill Clinton had his bit part in this). If that is so (and if so many are buying Trump's snake oil and venom), Dr. Krugman's analysis of Republican proposals (and any similar analysis from the Clinton campaign) will fall on deaf ears. That's not to say that Democrats should peddle fantasy, as Dr. Krugman has suggested, with some merit, that Senator Sanders' proposals do. But, there is a missing element in Secretary Clinton's campaign, and it is glaring: a clear, comprehensive vision that excites voters and convinces them she's not just getting into office (at best) to play defense and small ball. No one expects her to embrace Sanders' proposals, but she needs to give her own policies a compelling rationale. I hope someone can elbow through the crowds of pols and celebrities struggling to get close, and bring that message in a bottle.
1
If all the prediction markets and all the "hard-headed" analysts are certain Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, why are NY Times columnists and reporters universally horrified by the candidacy of Bernie Sanders?
Is it that we're not allowed to discuss American inequality in terms not set by the haves and have mores? That the Sunday shows are about the limit of permitted discourse in America?
Then again, it's much easier for a lot of self-described "progressives" to confront the lunacy in the Republican party than in the Clinton platform.
Is it that we're not allowed to discuss American inequality in terms not set by the haves and have mores? That the Sunday shows are about the limit of permitted discourse in America?
Then again, it's much easier for a lot of self-described "progressives" to confront the lunacy in the Republican party than in the Clinton platform.
2
Bernie Sanders idea on economics is to tax everyone to death. Hillary's mode of operation is to lie and placate the most recent group. At least you won't lose money with Trump and will gain some jobs. And that has not been achieved in the last eight years.
2
It's good you're now calling it Crankonomics instead of Voodoo (which is a religion followed by many decent people).
What is wonderful and amazing about Trump is he tells it like it is. As many are finally realizing that a vote Hillary is the same as a vote for Rubio and Cruz, only difference is a pants suit and probably strucker gun control but far and large, Hillary is a neocon warmonger, she and Obama followed the GOP PNAC plan to the tee. Divide and Conquer. I still see and hear Gen. Westley Clark telling us that back in 2003 the plan was to take down Iraq, Afghanistan Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, and Ukraine. 13 yrs. later, it's all been done, except that pesky Putin realized the ultimate goal was to eventually take him down as well. Aren't American outraged, that is why we are behind Trump to stop these treasonist warmongers that are abiding by another nations demand to destabilize the real-estate around it using our blood and treasury to do it.
1
When you see what Marco Rubio parrots as economic wisdom (never mind his social policies), Donald Trump sounds better and better. And that in itself is very scary. And then, of course, there's our conservative version of Che Guevara, Ted Cruz! At least The Donald, given his own business success, supposedly lives in the world of financial reality--although his budget plans also wreck the economy. But, you are absolutely right: the bottom-line is that it's all about economics, and to me that means the immense amount of money that has the very rich, and that does include Hillary, about to buy the Presidency with all the favors and IOUs due that will establish government by, of, and for the Wall Street plutocracy. We already are victims of an immense economic scam (much of it due to Bill Clinton who deregulated both the big banks and derivatives), and that's why I "Feel the Bern" despite your cries and others about his budget-busting proposals like "Medicare for All" which, of course, will not happen even though over 100 million of us (myself happily included) are already on either Medicare and Medicaid with the latter accounting for most new enrollments under Obamacare. So, let's for once focus on the great-ripoff of the American worker over the last three decades to understand the anger in today's electorate and which candidate, if any, is in touch with that reality.
1
The rampant "crankery" that Dr. Krugman righty identifies is not limited to the Republican field horizontally, each and every one. It can be seen in each election cycle vertically, going back to 2008 and 2012. The electoral college is not going anywhere, and its calculus is unyielding in favor of even a generic Democratic candidate over any Republican. At least some savvy red state insiders knew this in 2008, though in the weeks before the election it seems they kept this information from their candidate. And in 2012, the bizarre spectacle of Karl Rove--who should know better--loudly disbelieving the early calling of the race by none other than his own troops at Fox News shows superbly how the regressive movement continues to deny reality.
There continues to be no electoral math that gives any Republican candidate a win this year at the national level. The real race is for the Senate, not the White House.
There continues to be no electoral math that gives any Republican candidate a win this year at the national level. The real race is for the Senate, not the White House.
133
Having demonstrated her staying power? Sanders aside, Hillary is having a hard time getting the votes, so much that a relatively unknown candidate managed to corner her and her campaign, with not much. Worrisome.
3
They may be Rubio's positions, but I doubt he even knows what they are let alone what they would do. I cannot remember a less substantial candidate for President, calling him an empty suit is an insult to suits. And standing against Trump he looks even worse. For all his faults, The Donald is a man of accomplishments. Rubio will not be the nominee.
2
Among the viable Republicans, did PK just endorse Trump?
1
Which is worse? Easy question, Paul, and I'm surprised you even asked. The Establishment kind. It's completely dishonest. Given a choice between Trump and Rubio (and thank goodness that won't be the choice), I'd take Trump in a heartbeat. The Establishment-approved crankery has zero integrity, and has proved it time and again for several decades. Trump? There's still the possibility that deep down inside the man (or at least in the advisors he'd name) there exists reason that could percolate up.
4
Trump is George W. Bush's belligerence and thoughtlessness on steroids. Rubio is just Dan Quayle or Sarah Palin all over again, an empty suit trying to keep up. Cruz is a fundamentalist version of Joe McCarthy. Not a single one should be president. There isn't even a Mitt Romney in the bunch, to say nothing of Eisenhower, Theodore Roosevelt, or even Coolidge or Harding. None of them are even very good at their current jobs, which is at least something positive you can say about Herbert Hoover, who was a qualified engineer.
5
What should we think about a young man in his thirties borrowing thousands of dollars to buy a cruiser, a fun boat, while his children are still years from college?
I tell my sons there are only four acceptable reasons for borrowing money: education, medical care, roof over family and a second-hand car if you must commute. Otherwise, no borrowing.
We expect someone claiming fiscal conservatism to share such thoughts, but young man Marco could not wait to buy his fun boat in the sun---simply not a responsible character.
I tell my sons there are only four acceptable reasons for borrowing money: education, medical care, roof over family and a second-hand car if you must commute. Otherwise, no borrowing.
We expect someone claiming fiscal conservatism to share such thoughts, but young man Marco could not wait to buy his fun boat in the sun---simply not a responsible character.
6
A premature sigh of relief for Hillary's triumph does not reflect anything but the emerging echo chamber in the press and among pundits. 5% does not a landslide make. Clinton's theft of Sanders' "equality, ....too big to fail,....tax Wall St" positions is the highest form of strategy, I mean flattery. The "super delegate lead" speaks to backroom corruption that will collapse when Sanders scores big states.
The simple insight readers can make from the essence of Trump, Rubio, and Cruz positions is that they are all anti-democratic, pro-oligarchy/aristocracy. Over-reaching Republicans have exposed the foundational dogma of elitism: the people are unfit to govern. Republicans need to attract all of the ignorant, uneducated, racist, xenophobic, "prosperity Christians" , persons who vote against their own interests. Republicans have succeeded in motivating recipients of "social safety net" benefits in the "red" states to rally against these benefits, motivating "genital Christians" to focus on human sexual repression and bigotry to surrender personal rights submit to enforced religious repression, "free market trade pacts that export jobs, failure to prosecute the employers of illegal workers, and support of wars that the poor fight, and de-regulation that harms workers and pollute water and air. So distracted by slick support of wedge issues, these voters cannot see that they cut their own throats and vote to reduce taxes on the rich. Where's Hillary in this fight?
The simple insight readers can make from the essence of Trump, Rubio, and Cruz positions is that they are all anti-democratic, pro-oligarchy/aristocracy. Over-reaching Republicans have exposed the foundational dogma of elitism: the people are unfit to govern. Republicans need to attract all of the ignorant, uneducated, racist, xenophobic, "prosperity Christians" , persons who vote against their own interests. Republicans have succeeded in motivating recipients of "social safety net" benefits in the "red" states to rally against these benefits, motivating "genital Christians" to focus on human sexual repression and bigotry to surrender personal rights submit to enforced religious repression, "free market trade pacts that export jobs, failure to prosecute the employers of illegal workers, and support of wars that the poor fight, and de-regulation that harms workers and pollute water and air. So distracted by slick support of wedge issues, these voters cannot see that they cut their own throats and vote to reduce taxes on the rich. Where's Hillary in this fight?
5
So doesn't this mean campaign finance reform should be the big issue in this campaign?
3
I agree with PK. The baby-faced Cruz is being presented as the rational moderate, but his polices are strictly Tea Party and his economic views are based on nonsense. But his opponent Trump is not an outlier . His outrageous racism , sexism and xenophobia convey what all the GOP candidates express in coded language ; he just says it loudly and bluntly, repeatedly. At times, Trump tosses off an unorthodox view like his support for a universal insurance mandate or for the value of Planned Parenthood's health services,( or acknowledgement that GW Bush was president on 9/11/2001) but otherwise there's no serious policy or ideological difference between him & Cruz, Rubio, Kasich. They're all peddling retrogressive polices that failed in he past, and will again.
5
One trait that all the presidential candidates from 2016 class share is that they are detached from reality.
It’s an unbelievable amount of delusion they display in their public speeches. If the optimism could solve all the problems, we all would be the optimists. It’s prerequisite, but it’s just the bare minimum for the presidential job.
One has to understand the basics of mathematics and faith to successfully lead a country.
It’s not even worth wasting the words on any other candidate except Trump and Sanders.
Even those two candidate that inspired the enthusiasm among the young voters are not remotely qualified of leading America.
Trump is extremely proud that he gained $8 billion in the personal wealth during the period his country sank $19 trillion in debt. In 2002 in the interview with Howard Stern he was for invasion of Iraq but he opposed it in 2003. What are the candidates that change their opinion so widely good for?
Sanders is aware that we are in the colossal national debt, but he would provide the universal health care and free college to everybody. The basic mathematical principle is if in debt, slash the spending.
America is in the permanent war but there is no single candidate brave enough to say it publically. We are in the conflict with the Arabs, the Muslims, the Sunnis, the Shiites, the Russians, the Chinese, and just wrapped up a half-century conflict with catholic Cuba.
What’s the alleged conclusion? They are wrong and we are right.
It’s an unbelievable amount of delusion they display in their public speeches. If the optimism could solve all the problems, we all would be the optimists. It’s prerequisite, but it’s just the bare minimum for the presidential job.
One has to understand the basics of mathematics and faith to successfully lead a country.
It’s not even worth wasting the words on any other candidate except Trump and Sanders.
Even those two candidate that inspired the enthusiasm among the young voters are not remotely qualified of leading America.
Trump is extremely proud that he gained $8 billion in the personal wealth during the period his country sank $19 trillion in debt. In 2002 in the interview with Howard Stern he was for invasion of Iraq but he opposed it in 2003. What are the candidates that change their opinion so widely good for?
Sanders is aware that we are in the colossal national debt, but he would provide the universal health care and free college to everybody. The basic mathematical principle is if in debt, slash the spending.
America is in the permanent war but there is no single candidate brave enough to say it publically. We are in the conflict with the Arabs, the Muslims, the Sunnis, the Shiites, the Russians, the Chinese, and just wrapped up a half-century conflict with catholic Cuba.
What’s the alleged conclusion? They are wrong and we are right.
2
It's a long way down for democracy and the United States when 3 ideologically lead 'Christian' candidates are spinning gold out of thin air for the Oligarcy and the rubes are buying it! With the great help of the corporate media. Cranks! The United States has a deep and perverse willingness to follow cranks off the ledge.
6
I wonder why journalists on the left don't call out the real drivers of the crazy economics of tax cuts for the rich and elimination of regulations. We should know these people by name and they should be revealed for all to see. The Kochs, Bradleys, Olins, Scaiths and others have spent decades building the think tanks, media organizations and political "social welfare" not for profits that create the so called free market doctrine that you rightly criticize.
6
Gee "rjinthedesert" - Kasich has a heart? He just cut all funding to Planned Parenthood.
23
Can we please start talking about how many Republican senators are up for re-election and which of those races are close so we can get them OUT of congress and maybe then Congress can get back to a normal working relationship with our next Democratic Prez. (using the word 'normal' VERY loosely).
41
Rubio is old ideas in new clothing. No more, no less.
29
It seems rather too many Americans want to be conned. The art of the con, which is what Trump's deals mostly are, is to get the punter begging for more.
Social media and preference for cosmetic marketing over the dull business of real life has neutered too many people. They just want someone else to make it OK, to make the rules, to make it easy. In the end, they will get it hard, and the suffering will be immense.
As long as people prefer free stuff and cheap excitement, the Roman circus will continue. And that's what Trump has helped to make it: a gladiator show. That cute ditzy girl who wants to "make America great" too has no clue what it takes to solve problems and go forward, but she's willing to believe, because she wants it to be true.
The violence at the heart of all this appears to be meaningless to the punters. They think it's another video show, not a school of losers to give up the little the still have to a glorified shallow grifter.
Nature has been giving us a few displays of its power; now that is real power, and it is not fun and games.
Social media and preference for cosmetic marketing over the dull business of real life has neutered too many people. They just want someone else to make it OK, to make the rules, to make it easy. In the end, they will get it hard, and the suffering will be immense.
As long as people prefer free stuff and cheap excitement, the Roman circus will continue. And that's what Trump has helped to make it: a gladiator show. That cute ditzy girl who wants to "make America great" too has no clue what it takes to solve problems and go forward, but she's willing to believe, because she wants it to be true.
The violence at the heart of all this appears to be meaningless to the punters. They think it's another video show, not a school of losers to give up the little the still have to a glorified shallow grifter.
Nature has been giving us a few displays of its power; now that is real power, and it is not fun and games.
17
seriously great analysis summed up by the last paragraph!
23
"...Hillary Clinton, having demonstrated her staying power, is the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic nomination. "
And Paul Krugnman is the overwhelming favorite to lose a lot of his supporters because he is showing again and again how slanted his views can be when it suits him.
And Paul Krugnman is the overwhelming favorite to lose a lot of his supporters because he is showing again and again how slanted his views can be when it suits him.
17
A marionette with an overdrawn credit card versus an animated cartoon projection from a reality show funding his run with the sale of baseball hats with a hackneyed slogan emblazoned on them. Though to be fair, my local cheese store likes Donald's slogan it has appropriated it for its window,''Make America Grate Again.'' Will that be Parmigiano-Reggiano? Or pre-grated Trump cheese enhanced with wood-pulp?
20
Rubio does have a mouth on him, when its not parked on a water bottle. But qs John Wayne said, a big mouth don't make a big man. Here'sw a guy who had trouble balancing his own financies, had to become hand maiden to a car dealer billionaire and has any foreign policy chops from attending Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings, most of which he missed. Better than Cruz? Sure, like a drunk driver is better than Hannibal Lecter. The tea party has done to the Republican party what ISIS is doing to the middle east.
35
Marco Rubio is too slick and slippery and may yet win the nomination. I wish the heavyweight from New Jersey were still around. He would have grabbed Rubio in his jaws and let out all the hot air. Oh, where are you, Chris Christie?
9
Party orthodoxy has led us to a point where where the Democrats will nominate an unelectable former Secretary of State who is more than capable of doing the job but will never get anybody but her core to the polls and three men who should never be allowed near the oval office.
Thank you, NYT and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
"Such a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation."
Thank you, NYT and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
"Such a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation."
10
So you're saying that it's trickle down economic crankery?
8
It's either that, or Voodoo crankery.
Bernie is great but if he gets the nomination I can promise you another George McGovern defeat in November. What I can't promise you with this 'Republican' crowd and press is another Watergate.
11
Thank you.
8
Isn't Rubio a younger Hispanic version of Reagan? Or did I miss something? Yes, his views are dangerous and compared to Donald's, well, who the heck knows? Building a wall and everything will be "tremendous" are the only things known about Trump. I really think he's a lot more moderate than he can say because he knows he has to pander to the bottom feeders to win.
5
"It’s idiosyncratic, self-invented crankery versus establishment-approved crankery, and it’s not at all clear which is worse." Clearly, the former is far more preferable, as the voters have told us again and again. Hardheaded analysis of delegate count shows that voters are on the verge of sending Trump to the WH, just to prove how much they hate the lies espoused by the "establishment-approved crankery." It is too late to change course!
9
Many of us are alarmed by the continued popularity of Donald Trump and of other candidates who seem wildly unsuited to public service. How can such people prosper, even after they’ve made outrageous claims, impossible promises, and unsupportable accusations? How can clowns and demagogues prevail over serious individuals?
We have ourselves to blame for our ignorance and our gullibility. But television and other mass media have vigorously abetted our decline into highly manipulable targets of demagoguery. Orwell’s “1984” stressed the role of a depleted vocabulary. Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451” showed us the effectiveness of brain-numbing distractions. Chayefsky’s “Network” shouted about the human propensity to get “mad as hell” without having the slightest idea what or whom we’re actually mad at.
We’ve always had the capacity to blurt, vent, rant, and otherwise “lose it.” The big question is whether we’ll eventually lose our ability (and willingness) to get past the rage and--dare I say it?--think critically.
We have ourselves to blame for our ignorance and our gullibility. But television and other mass media have vigorously abetted our decline into highly manipulable targets of demagoguery. Orwell’s “1984” stressed the role of a depleted vocabulary. Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451” showed us the effectiveness of brain-numbing distractions. Chayefsky’s “Network” shouted about the human propensity to get “mad as hell” without having the slightest idea what or whom we’re actually mad at.
We’ve always had the capacity to blurt, vent, rant, and otherwise “lose it.” The big question is whether we’ll eventually lose our ability (and willingness) to get past the rage and--dare I say it?--think critically.
66
Well said.
4
Marco is a modern day Dan Quayle. He doesn't think but merely repeats what he's told. As for his economics all I can say it........Kansas.
48
Can't leave it alone can you: "...Clinton overwhelming favorite...", utter nonsense!
12
Interesting that the only time Mr. Krugman seems concerned about the debt is when some politician starts talking about cutting taxes. Just one time, I'd love to hear him tell us what spending he'd cut from THE WELFARE STATE - not just from defense (which obviously needs a good cutting).
3
He'd like to see single-payer health insurance, aggressive bargaining with pharmaceutical companies, and lifting the cap on SSI contributions over $110K.
As he's said about a gazillion times.
But what would you like cut? Food stamps for hungry kids? Vets' benefits? Help for the disabled? Your own SSI checks?
As he's said about a gazillion times.
But what would you like cut? Food stamps for hungry kids? Vets' benefits? Help for the disabled? Your own SSI checks?
30
What welfare state do you speak of. For here in Texas there is not much of it. Unless of course you mean Social Security/Medicare and Social Security Disability as welfare. Which by definition are not welfare.
He isn't concerned about the debt because it isn't a huge issue in the larger scheme of things, not with things the way they are now. Yes it'd be nice to pay it down some but the time to do that is when the economy is strong and employment is high.
Anyway the biggest contributor to in our current very high debt is the Bush tax cuts, which is why additional tax cuts make no sense if the goal is to pay off debt.
Anyway the biggest contributor to in our current very high debt is the Bush tax cuts, which is why additional tax cuts make no sense if the goal is to pay off debt.
Here is what the writer---and many of the commenters--don't understand (or don't want to)....Never before has a candidate with such negative ratings on honesty and likeability that Clinton has has ever become President....NEVER....nor should they....
So exactly what are you pinning your hopes on?
Next topic please
So exactly what are you pinning your hopes on?
Next topic please
9
Got data? How about historical context?
9
Let's discuss just why it is that the Right can't focus on the actual topic at hand, or find a fact with both hands and a hunting dog.
Mr. Krugman fails to observe the obvious.
The 2016 election cycle is REACTIONARY on all sides.
There is not one single Presidential Candidate, Democrat or Republican, that is willing to face the future.
Every single one of them is preaching some kind of return to the imaginary "good ole days"....
Be it: Trying harder to implement all of FDR's policies.
or
Making America Great...Again.(just like yesterday).
or
"Creating jobs"
Its all a throwback to "better times'.....absolutely NONE of them is suggesting something new....and PIONEERING.
Poor ole Bernie thinks 1905 is just around the corner and we're almost finished building the Workers Paradise!
Hillary is lost in the Summer of Love....uh, 1968 folks, approximately 50 years ago in case you missed the bus.
The so-called "republicans" , well, never mind, they're completely clueless...off in a special Warped corner of the time-space continuum called "Reagan"
The 2016 election cycle is REACTIONARY on all sides.
There is not one single Presidential Candidate, Democrat or Republican, that is willing to face the future.
Every single one of them is preaching some kind of return to the imaginary "good ole days"....
Be it: Trying harder to implement all of FDR's policies.
or
Making America Great...Again.(just like yesterday).
or
"Creating jobs"
Its all a throwback to "better times'.....absolutely NONE of them is suggesting something new....and PIONEERING.
Poor ole Bernie thinks 1905 is just around the corner and we're almost finished building the Workers Paradise!
Hillary is lost in the Summer of Love....uh, 1968 folks, approximately 50 years ago in case you missed the bus.
The so-called "republicans" , well, never mind, they're completely clueless...off in a special Warped corner of the time-space continuum called "Reagan"
9
Uh, pookie, the Russian Rev took place in 1917.
But thanks for the hilarious claim that Hillary's a hippie.
But thanks for the hilarious claim that Hillary's a hippie.
10
American politics is a bread and circus horse race financed by money, which the supreme court defines as "speech"and by corporations which the supreme court defines as "people".............so buying elections(through behavioral and thought manipulation via the media)becomes "the exercise of free speech by the people"..... thus you don't have wisdom or true patriotic leadership in the running but the"cranks" as Krugman describes trying to morph into characters designed by their political manipulators..........Cruz and Rubio from recent immigrant families ,denouncing immigration,supporting unlimited increases in military spending ,which makes for more war and more refugees and immigrants,...a mutant billionaire who keeps repeating,"i got mine",when I get elected," youll get yours" I know how its done....I manipulated and bribed politicians and worked the system im successful.......but ill change all that and make America great again.....just for others!......his campaign consists of repetitious sound bites and no substance....and its working!.......meanwhile Hillary has been confirmed as their only viable choice by walled street bankers(this time).......and Bernie who talks the talk.........but walks the establishment walk......more of the same
7
It sounds like Mr. Krugman once again fails to understand how a rising tide will raise all ships. Instead, his ad hominem based arguments ignore relevant information in an attempt to delegitimize Mr. Rubio so Mrs. Clinton can win the general election. His view, "of course", is to tax the wealthy and tax corporations because keynesian economics works so well in the once economically thriving states like Connecticut. By taxing individuals and corporations at Clinton proposed rates, individuals and corporations leave. In Connecticut, GE just left (and the state legislature is once again proposing to raise taxes to drive away businesses and individuals) and the increased rate of corporate inversions speaks to the same trend nationally. So, people and corporations will migrate to the areas of least resistance -- in terms of their tax burden. If that is true (which it is!), then the goal should be to maximize the size of the economic pie, which can only be done by attracting businesses.
Now on to the Rubio plan. If you look at it, most of the tax cuts are focused on limiting the negative impact of low-income families 'graduating' out of their benefits and losing a large part of the money they need. Further, Rubio's simplified 3-tier tax code with closed loopholes will have people actually pay taxes. Mr. Krugman is right about one thing though -- eliminating all taxes on investment income may be a step too far. It's a good thing Congress is not bound by the President's tax plan!
Now on to the Rubio plan. If you look at it, most of the tax cuts are focused on limiting the negative impact of low-income families 'graduating' out of their benefits and losing a large part of the money they need. Further, Rubio's simplified 3-tier tax code with closed loopholes will have people actually pay taxes. Mr. Krugman is right about one thing though -- eliminating all taxes on investment income may be a step too far. It's a good thing Congress is not bound by the President's tax plan!
1
It really is a big deal to be POTUS--a lot of knowledge, good judgment, and responsibility is required. Most professions of significance, especially ones that can do serious harm, require testing and sometimes licensing to be certified before being allowed to practice the profession--law, medicine, university teaching.
It was Marco Rubio who made me think this because that man doesn't know what he is doing. There are law, medical, and graduate students like that too. They memorize answers, often try to figure out what the professor believes and then tailor their work and responses accordingly, and they are glib but frequently wrong.
So we have required exams to weed out the inept and the phonies. The rigor of doctoral exams is good, where there is a written exam and an oral exam. The oral exam is helpful in weeding out students who memorized their way through and blurt out incorrect information. What you want is for the candidate to be grilled by outstanding professors who know their stuff and won't tolerate the glib and the phonies.
So let's have a required oral exam for presidential candidate where a panel of accomplished professors and maybe past presidents grill each candidate to make sure the candidate is informed, acts responsibility with information, and is ethical and accountable. In which case, most, if not all, of the GOP candidates would be gone and denied the opportunity to run for POTUS--forcing the RNC to do better.
Bernie and Hillary would do fine.
It was Marco Rubio who made me think this because that man doesn't know what he is doing. There are law, medical, and graduate students like that too. They memorize answers, often try to figure out what the professor believes and then tailor their work and responses accordingly, and they are glib but frequently wrong.
So we have required exams to weed out the inept and the phonies. The rigor of doctoral exams is good, where there is a written exam and an oral exam. The oral exam is helpful in weeding out students who memorized their way through and blurt out incorrect information. What you want is for the candidate to be grilled by outstanding professors who know their stuff and won't tolerate the glib and the phonies.
So let's have a required oral exam for presidential candidate where a panel of accomplished professors and maybe past presidents grill each candidate to make sure the candidate is informed, acts responsibility with information, and is ethical and accountable. In which case, most, if not all, of the GOP candidates would be gone and denied the opportunity to run for POTUS--forcing the RNC to do better.
Bernie and Hillary would do fine.
9
The wealthy and powerful oppose unions. Certainly there are criticisms unions must address. Protecting some members, too narrow job descriptions and hours, etc frustrate managers whether in education or construction or public service. However, the current push by the elite of the GOP requires a rebirth of unions. The coal barons owned the worker. "16 tons and what do you get? another day older and deeper in debt" are words to a song not far from reality for coal miners of the 19th and early 20th century. Until unions, bloodied by the horrific reaction of their "owners" were able to force management - the wealthy - to negotiate the miner and his family suffered. The elite of today talk and act like they want to return to the control barons of the past enjoyed. Remove health care for all, less education, longer work hours, fewer women rights, less taxation of the wealthy, continued low wages, etc and we quickly return to an era bereft of justice and certainly of any equality. In terms of economic policies neither Rubio nor Trump speak for the majority of Americans. They are committed to more power and control in the hands of a few - far less democracy.
9
Increasingly, politics now consists of choosing the lesser of evils. At every political level, there are so many policy choices presented that it is virtually impossible to find any political figure with whom a responsible/informed voter can generally find favor with much less fully agree. And why would this not be expected to be the case? There may be many shades of gray, but our political system, ultimately having but two voices, is essentially designed as a binary game. I'm not at all happy with the process or the prospects of our current presidential`primary process. We are playing in a silly game, where we are assaulted with inferior people choices and nonsensical policy choices. Only the truly uninformed would maintain that the political process is not perverted in the U.S. Nostalgia and ignorance shape policy. Religious dogma, and the myth of U.S. exceptionalism, displace reason and education. I am embarrassed for our country.
15
So, what is your complaint with Hillary? I, at least, agree with almost everything she says.
I also agree with most of what Sanders says, but he doesn't say much about foreign policy, which worries me, and he doesn't seem realistic about what could be achieved even if the democrats win big. So I support Hillary with considerable enthusiasm: she strikes me as the best presidential candidate we have had since Truman.
I also agree with most of what Sanders says, but he doesn't say much about foreign policy, which worries me, and he doesn't seem realistic about what could be achieved even if the democrats win big. So I support Hillary with considerable enthusiasm: she strikes me as the best presidential candidate we have had since Truman.
1
The GOP has long bludgeoned Democrats with the "something for nothing" fantasy and yet it has no trouble selling the idea of no tax on investments while demanding a robust military, disaster relief, vigilant policing, quality education, roads, bridges and everything else one needs to survive in today's gated communities. Can someone steer the discussion to the responsibilities of living in a society where we can safely enjoy the Four Freedoms as well as Downton Abbey and the Super Bowl ? This is a big, successful complex society- it needs a big successful government to provide structure and form for the free enterprise system to function. Taxes are the dues we pay for stability and assurance that someone will look after the common good- if it is flawed, like all human institutions, then let's spend resources to make it better. The GOPs idea of making it better is throwing millions in advertisements to blame it for anything that goes wrong, starve it to make it fail and then destroy it by electing fools. We are made of better stuff. If we can put a station in space, we can work out a tax system that is fair and raises the necessary revenue to serve the vast middle of this great nation. The Foxic waste of today's politics is filled with lost opportunities to apply energy and dollars to building something worthy of our forebears and our children.
20
Mr. Rubio is not pandering to the party's elite by proposing his own didactic policies for how to fix, strengthen or revamp the U.S. economy, or telling them what he believes they want to hear. He is pandering to his elite by dutifully regurgitating the policies they wish him to champion should he become the Republican nominee or the president. Drastically cut taxes on investment income? Tout, with little or no objective supporting data or precedent--that is, prove, with science and math--that such policy is more than weak theory? That such cuts will vastly free up capital for reinvestment in jobs, manufacturing, infrastructure? Check. Tout a requirement that the feds set forth a balanced budget? That would impose massive hemorrhaging on all social welfare-and-net programs, in education, in transportation, in regulation enforcement--that is, the spectrum of government responsibility in day-to-day? That would, in turn, spur a heavy, despotic, fait accompli federal boot on the necks of all who would protest? Check. It is a dominant annoyance, and concern, that Rubio's major economic "initiatives" fall precisely in line with long-held arch conservative desires to manipulate the financial system for maximum self-dealing, and to end federal involvement in most functions except the military and foreign policy. These are not exclusively Rubio's ideas. These are talking points he is pressed to parrot if he wants the massive campaign funds and the nod. Don't Get Fooled Again.
11
The Republican mantra on economic policy is Ronald Reagan's mantra on economic policy, delivered with confidence and conviction, and just as defiant of reality as was President Reagan. Reagan's popularity and ability to convince the vast majority of the people that their democracy was to be found in markets not it in their government and their future should be made by means of the market, not the government of, by, and for the people as asserted by Lincoln. Reagan was not a reasonable man. That is not that he was unapproachable or not able to relate well to others, he did not accept our modern view of the world that what we imagine and reason must not contradict the empirical evidence that these speculative faculties anticipate. He would not give up on the idea that tax cuts must produce economic expansion, even though he had to raise taxes to correct big deficits. He would not give up on the Strategic Defense Initiative when Gorbachev explained that just sending more missiles could defeat it. When he liked something he could not give it up despite the evidence that it was folly. That is unreasonable. But the spirit is the same for those who deny climate change, who oppose diplomacy over projecting the military as a blunt instrument, who would sacrifice people's welfare to adhere to principles or to oppose principles, ways of thinking that oppose the modern, the knowledge of discovery from science, and the right of freedom of conscience for everyone being unalienable.
18
Trmp, Cruz and Rubio? All would be a disaster if they receive the Nomiation of the GOP, and the Lord help us if they would wing in a General Election. However, - I have a question. "Why in the World has John Kasic receoved little to NO traction in the Republcian Campaing. Is it a fact that he has no charisma, or more the fact that he posses himself as a Moderate. He also comes off as a man with a heart when it comes to his empathy for those who have fallen through the cracks, - as evidenced by his accepting the Medicaid proposal for the people of his State. Could it be the fact that he tookover a State with an a huge deficit and turned it around to a surplus along with over a 350,000 growth in Employment is State?
My guess would be the fact that Kasich reflects the fact that he posesses a heart that makes his run unworthy by the GOP Establishment. The Establshment should come to grips with reality. Without John Kascih they have no one who would give Hillary a run for the money in the General Election. (Of course the GOP establishment could care less as their Money is on 3 Candiates who meet the requirement of what Plato referred to as a Demagogues who are intent in bringing the end of Democracy through the preaching of fear and hate!
My guess would be the fact that Kasich reflects the fact that he posesses a heart that makes his run unworthy by the GOP Establishment. The Establshment should come to grips with reality. Without John Kascih they have no one who would give Hillary a run for the money in the General Election. (Of course the GOP establishment could care less as their Money is on 3 Candiates who meet the requirement of what Plato referred to as a Demagogues who are intent in bringing the end of Democracy through the preaching of fear and hate!
11
A very well stated piece by Krugman - if he was speaking at an economic summit or a university symposium.
Economic reality has almost nothing to do with what any of these candidates are proposing. Its been that way since the election of Ronald Reagan when magical reasoning on economics replaced rational thought.
All of these candidates are creatures of the power structure of this country having been a part of it for all of their respective careers, including Trump. Even Sanders, the most extreme in his proposals, should he ever be elected, will be quickly brought to heel by the plutocrats and special interest that rule this country.
So, there is little reason to really pay any attention to the economic proposals coming out of the various campaigns since they'll all be upended once the winner in November becomes even more entrenched as part of the establishment elite.
Economic reality has almost nothing to do with what any of these candidates are proposing. Its been that way since the election of Ronald Reagan when magical reasoning on economics replaced rational thought.
All of these candidates are creatures of the power structure of this country having been a part of it for all of their respective careers, including Trump. Even Sanders, the most extreme in his proposals, should he ever be elected, will be quickly brought to heel by the plutocrats and special interest that rule this country.
So, there is little reason to really pay any attention to the economic proposals coming out of the various campaigns since they'll all be upended once the winner in November becomes even more entrenched as part of the establishment elite.
2
The real test of Hillary Clinton's character will be , should she prevail , does she embrace her new found Progressivism or resort to the corporate centrist she actually is.
I hope she proves me wrong. I hope she realizes there's no reasoning, no working with intransigent GOP foes who reject the science of climate change and evolution. Foes who shut down the government when they don't get their way. Deadenders determined to repeal Obamacare, who've targeted Planned Parenthood as well as severely restricted Women's, Voting and Worker's Rights.
These guys dont appreciate pragmatism or a conciliatory tone. They view it as weakness.
The only way to defeat the regressive forces entrenched on the right is with bold, Progressive policies that excite, inspire and offer a stark contrast to austerity and more trickle down fairy dust.
Low expectations and assurance of continued gridlock is no way to run a campaign or motivate a disillusioned electorate.
The reason we're in the mess we find ourselves in is because harsh, unpopular GOP policies motivate a narrow , extremely loyal right wing base to vote.
If HRC offers token resistance and a fierce defense of the unacceptabke status quo, expect continued misery, cynicism and hopelessness from a beaten down and defeatist American citizenry.
I hope she proves me wrong. I hope she realizes there's no reasoning, no working with intransigent GOP foes who reject the science of climate change and evolution. Foes who shut down the government when they don't get their way. Deadenders determined to repeal Obamacare, who've targeted Planned Parenthood as well as severely restricted Women's, Voting and Worker's Rights.
These guys dont appreciate pragmatism or a conciliatory tone. They view it as weakness.
The only way to defeat the regressive forces entrenched on the right is with bold, Progressive policies that excite, inspire and offer a stark contrast to austerity and more trickle down fairy dust.
Low expectations and assurance of continued gridlock is no way to run a campaign or motivate a disillusioned electorate.
The reason we're in the mess we find ourselves in is because harsh, unpopular GOP policies motivate a narrow , extremely loyal right wing base to vote.
If HRC offers token resistance and a fierce defense of the unacceptabke status quo, expect continued misery, cynicism and hopelessness from a beaten down and defeatist American citizenry.
6
If this election is like the other elections we've had it's not going to matter who we vote for. Why? Because almost every candidate is bought and paid for by big business and wealthy donors. They are the population being served by our elected officials. The middle and working classes do not count in anyone's calculations except as employees to fire, wallets to pick, and peons to take advantage of. Furthermore, with the Greedy Omnivorous Piranhas in control of Congress at present (and probably in the future), nothing of substance will be done or get accomplished no matter who wins. Therefore the middle and working classes of America lose again.
11
That is utter insanity. It would be make a tremendous difference if a Republican gets elected and wreaks absolute havoc on our economy, our debt, our foreign policy, and any efforts to ward off climate change. No, maybe the Democrats aren't ideal. But this kind of "doesn't matter who wins" gave us 8 years of Bush, the Iraq war, etc. ThIs "bought and paid for" meme is just an excuse not to get involved and try to make a difference. Many people around the world would love to -- and are dying to -- have a democracy as least as open as ours (though of course it is far from perfect and we need to do more to get big money out of politics.)
I do not believe what you say is true of the Democrats. The two parties are not the same. This is Ralph Nader rubbish.
Prof. Krugman neglects to mention that Sen. Rubio has a nice smile. Such things go a long way in the Republican Party. A nice smile versus a facility with insults. Which one gets my vote? Jeez, this is so hard...
15
It is really, really, really weird that I read this article, and decided I'll write a short note pointing out the fact that Rubio keeps frowning and putting on a very angry demeanor and hardly ever smiles.. and how a ready smile can really enchant voters.
Imagine my amazement, when I saw stu's article about this very topic, but with the exact opposite observation- that Rubio smiles.
Can't say anything more except to ask stu to check out the debate videos, and take a good look at Rubio's expression.
Imagine my amazement, when I saw stu's article about this very topic, but with the exact opposite observation- that Rubio smiles.
Can't say anything more except to ask stu to check out the debate videos, and take a good look at Rubio's expression.
The "Median," U.S. household income is $51,939.
The "Mean" U.S. income is $72,641.
The "Median" wealth of an adult in the U.S. is a mere $44,900, putting us in 19th place among Western, Developed Nations, for wealth per adult.
Our candidates?
* Donald Trump - somewhere over $4 billion
* Hillary Clinton - $15.3 million
* Ted Cruz - $3.00 million
* Rand Paul - $1.3 million
* Marco Rubio - $443,500
* Bernie Sanders - $330,507
Republican Donors? A few on a list in "The Atlantic":
* The Koch Brothers combined over $100 billion
* Sheldon Adelson has $29.1 billion
* Peter Thiel has $2.2 billion
* Paul Singer $1.92 billion
* Foster Friess has a mere $530 million
Top Democrats?
* Tom Steyer & Kat Taylor at $74.3 billion
* Warren Buffet at $62.billion
* Michael Bloomberg at $38.6 billion
* George Soros at $26 billion
That list is longer as well: http://www.forbes.com/sites/chloesorvino/2015/09/30/the-biggest-most-inf...
None of these people care about economics quite the way most of us do Paul, most being the 99%, or at least 90% of us. When the world crashed in 2008 they may have been hurt in some investments but they had the cash to snatch up seriously devalued assets at bargain basement prices.
One person on the list approximates the income and wealth of most of us.
Bernie Sanders.
The "Mean" U.S. income is $72,641.
The "Median" wealth of an adult in the U.S. is a mere $44,900, putting us in 19th place among Western, Developed Nations, for wealth per adult.
Our candidates?
* Donald Trump - somewhere over $4 billion
* Hillary Clinton - $15.3 million
* Ted Cruz - $3.00 million
* Rand Paul - $1.3 million
* Marco Rubio - $443,500
* Bernie Sanders - $330,507
Republican Donors? A few on a list in "The Atlantic":
* The Koch Brothers combined over $100 billion
* Sheldon Adelson has $29.1 billion
* Peter Thiel has $2.2 billion
* Paul Singer $1.92 billion
* Foster Friess has a mere $530 million
Top Democrats?
* Tom Steyer & Kat Taylor at $74.3 billion
* Warren Buffet at $62.billion
* Michael Bloomberg at $38.6 billion
* George Soros at $26 billion
That list is longer as well: http://www.forbes.com/sites/chloesorvino/2015/09/30/the-biggest-most-inf...
None of these people care about economics quite the way most of us do Paul, most being the 99%, or at least 90% of us. When the world crashed in 2008 they may have been hurt in some investments but they had the cash to snatch up seriously devalued assets at bargain basement prices.
One person on the list approximates the income and wealth of most of us.
Bernie Sanders.
70
We should not condemn wealthy people in general. FDR was a wealthy person, after all. Instead we should concentrate on improving the living standards of the middle class and poor. Yes, we should insist that the rich pay their fair share of taxes.
Rich people sure make friends easily. Here is an article by a 25 year veteran Nevada reporter, Jon Ralston, who shows us that Harry Reid used his influence to push low wage casino and hotel workers to leave work and go directly to the caucuses to pitch for Hillary. The union says because they are in contract negotiations, they are publicly not endorsing any candidate. Harry must have done some very good persuading in order to get the workers to go en masse to caucus for Hillary. Maybe Christmas came early for some people.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/02/20/hillary-clinton-wins-ne...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/02/20/hillary-clinton-wins-ne...
The Republican race may wind up as a contest between three factions and their candidates - the working-class non-religiose (Trump), the religiose (Cruz) and the plutocratic (Rubio). It's hard to see one of these getting a majority before the convention. Which two could unite to select a candidate?
12
Dr. Krugman implies that Mr. Sanders, never mentioned by name, has been eliminated leaving the Democratic Party crank free.
As to the Republicans, Dr. Krugman previously wrote this about the equally not mentioned Mr. Trump
"The only candidate talking sense about economics was, yes, Donald Trump, who declared that “we’ve had a graduated tax system for many years, so it’s not a socialistic thing.”
(P.K. NY Times, 9/18/2015)
Anything will do to bash socialists.
As to the Republicans, Dr. Krugman previously wrote this about the equally not mentioned Mr. Trump
"The only candidate talking sense about economics was, yes, Donald Trump, who declared that “we’ve had a graduated tax system for many years, so it’s not a socialistic thing.”
(P.K. NY Times, 9/18/2015)
Anything will do to bash socialists.
11
Rubio doesn't have a clue and is merely pandering to the fanatic base. These people have swallowed the belief that reducing government revenue increases government revenue. After all the severe tax cutting over the last 15 years, this has never happened and has exploded deficits.
Rubio has gone full Sam Brownback. Instead of reducing tax rates, Brownback zeroed them out for pass through entities. Rubio wants to do the same for the super rich. Here is the result. The Kansas City Star has reported that over the last six years, Kansas has moved over one billion dollars from the highway department to fund general revenues, 300 million last year alone. Maintenance has been reduced from 1200 miles a year to 200. The DOT just issued 400 million in bonds to pay for the roads. That means they are borrowing to pay for what used to be funded by taxes. The Highway patrol is about 20% understaffed and cannot adequately patrol the state. School funding has been deeply cut. The state supreme court will close the schools unless they come up with another 54 million. Then they just issued a huge sales tax increase and taxes on alcohol and tobacco. After all that, the state is still 200 million the hole.
This is Rubio's world.
Opportunity to Rubio and the GOP is anyone that makes money off of investments should pay zero in taxes and the money will trickle down to the rest of us. Still waiting for my check.
Rubio has gone full Sam Brownback. Instead of reducing tax rates, Brownback zeroed them out for pass through entities. Rubio wants to do the same for the super rich. Here is the result. The Kansas City Star has reported that over the last six years, Kansas has moved over one billion dollars from the highway department to fund general revenues, 300 million last year alone. Maintenance has been reduced from 1200 miles a year to 200. The DOT just issued 400 million in bonds to pay for the roads. That means they are borrowing to pay for what used to be funded by taxes. The Highway patrol is about 20% understaffed and cannot adequately patrol the state. School funding has been deeply cut. The state supreme court will close the schools unless they come up with another 54 million. Then they just issued a huge sales tax increase and taxes on alcohol and tobacco. After all that, the state is still 200 million the hole.
This is Rubio's world.
Opportunity to Rubio and the GOP is anyone that makes money off of investments should pay zero in taxes and the money will trickle down to the rest of us. Still waiting for my check.
356
Am I the only one who looks at Rubio and sees an ethnic Dan Quayle? The guy has all the leadership qualities of a potatoe.
As Kansas goes so goes America if the Democrats don't vote, and the 20-somethings won't because they are spoiled children and their Bernie is not going to be nominated. Democrats have caused this for one simple reason - they don't vote in mid-terms and now over 50% of the states are Red and in the red like Kansas. New Mexico is moving in that direction as well.
We're still waiting eagerly for Kansas voters to realize they need to
go in a very different direction. Is there any actual evidence that
this is happening?
go in a very different direction. Is there any actual evidence that
this is happening?
Those like Krugman are doing everything they can to elect Trump. It is like the Communists in Germany who supported Hitler because he was the easiest to beat, they thought. Trump would take Hillary easily.
First, Hillary is miles from victory. The super-delegates will flee from her if it turns out she can only carry the blacks in the primary--or Bernie carries younger blacks.
Trump is the only New Dealer in the race. and Krugman is in hysteria that the Democrats might nominate one. Trump is winning the New Deal voter not because of racism but because the other candidates are far too far to the right. The idiot Christie came out for a Krugman program of cutting Social Security and Medicare, and even Kasich has remained way to the right.
Second, the Establishment candidate is Kasich. He has a 14 point lead over Hillary, and it will be 20 by the time he gets name recognition. Either Trump will win an outright majority of delegates (and the absolutely crazy Republican delegate system with gerrymandered Congressional districts--see Nate Kohn--makes this possible, or it is going to Kasich in the convention.
Does Krugman really think the Republicans who he thinks are racists will nominate an Hispanic affirmative action candidate younger and less experienced than Obama in 2008--and without Obama's huge black base? And an Hispanic who cannot be believed on immigration. Krugman doesn't think Trump will lay waste to him as Cruz fades in the non-evangelical states?
First, Hillary is miles from victory. The super-delegates will flee from her if it turns out she can only carry the blacks in the primary--or Bernie carries younger blacks.
Trump is the only New Dealer in the race. and Krugman is in hysteria that the Democrats might nominate one. Trump is winning the New Deal voter not because of racism but because the other candidates are far too far to the right. The idiot Christie came out for a Krugman program of cutting Social Security and Medicare, and even Kasich has remained way to the right.
Second, the Establishment candidate is Kasich. He has a 14 point lead over Hillary, and it will be 20 by the time he gets name recognition. Either Trump will win an outright majority of delegates (and the absolutely crazy Republican delegate system with gerrymandered Congressional districts--see Nate Kohn--makes this possible, or it is going to Kasich in the convention.
Does Krugman really think the Republicans who he thinks are racists will nominate an Hispanic affirmative action candidate younger and less experienced than Obama in 2008--and without Obama's huge black base? And an Hispanic who cannot be believed on immigration. Krugman doesn't think Trump will lay waste to him as Cruz fades in the non-evangelical states?
15
Kasich's problem is building a coalition. He needs to steal Bernie's health care as his improvement of Obamacare. Not full Canada, but enough to extend benefits to middle income. He should consider--with different numbers Cruz's replacement of the Social Security tax with a VAT Trump would make a great Secretary of Homeland Security with a mandate t0 reform the immigration law including amnesty. Carson for Surgeon General. Christie for VP unless Rubio is a necessity.
4
Hillary may have trouble in the general election because of people who should know better have been buying into the GOP campaign of Hillary destruction. That includes progressives who keep trumpeting that Hillary is dishonest, not to be trusted and a shill for Wall Street. Being enamored of Sanders will not get him the nomination, there are simply not enough people like that even among Democrats. By all means people who prefer Sanders over Hillary should vote for him but keep in mind that attacking Hillary may enable someone like Rubio or Trump be the next President. If you don't think that is worse than having Hillary as President you have no business supporting Sanders either.
72
Kasich is just a kinder, gentler Sam Brownback. Wouldn't that be lovely on a national scale?
8
There most certainly does need to be a revolution in the U.S. We need to elect anyone from any party or ideology that would be willing to use an executive order to force all Congresspersons into the Capital Building and bar the doors until they practice passing legislation. They have obviously forgotten how. Once they relearn how and pass, say, fifteen real and substantive bills, we can proceed. For now, with a totally broken Congress, and Supremes that see no difference between corporations and people, it is a little hard to believe anyone crazy enough to want to be President could begin their term any other way. As to the Supremes, change will take more time but as long as we are revolutionizing, let's elect them, and not for life. That can be done by the revolutionized Congress.
11
Thanks for this column.
As usual, you help keep me (barely) sane.
In our house, we refer to him as MICRO Rubio.
Very small, by any measure.
As usual, you help keep me (barely) sane.
In our house, we refer to him as MICRO Rubio.
Very small, by any measure.
79
Many voters this cycle seem to be contending with the very concept of reality... By the magic of the ballot box we can re-imagine the world and then contend with a new reality which, if we don't like it we can change again...
This is akin to climate change deniers. But as we shall see and are seeing, we can deny what we don't want to face, but that won't keep typhoon X from blowing your house down.
Why is this ? Is there something in our food, in the water, in our media, placed surreptitiously that makes us stupid?
Have our 'gut bacteria' decided to fight back and turn us into bloated, unthinking hosts for them to fed off of?
Rational think, what PK calls 'hardheaded analysis' seems of little consequence. Many so-called 'realists' have abandoned the 'nonsense' of religion but have replaced it with destructive de-humanization, devoid of responsibility, heavy lifting or, seemingly, consequence...
It's very, very scary...
This is akin to climate change deniers. But as we shall see and are seeing, we can deny what we don't want to face, but that won't keep typhoon X from blowing your house down.
Why is this ? Is there something in our food, in the water, in our media, placed surreptitiously that makes us stupid?
Have our 'gut bacteria' decided to fight back and turn us into bloated, unthinking hosts for them to fed off of?
Rational think, what PK calls 'hardheaded analysis' seems of little consequence. Many so-called 'realists' have abandoned the 'nonsense' of religion but have replaced it with destructive de-humanization, devoid of responsibility, heavy lifting or, seemingly, consequence...
It's very, very scary...
21
Conservatism is an ideology, a religion of the faithful. Dogma rules. For example: many, Justice Scalia the most prominent, believe in the infallible founders who created the US Constitution. Will Rubio/Cruz want a SC justice that will carry on the tradition of Justice Scalia? If McConnell is successful in denying a sitting President his obligation to appoint a new Justice, does this fly in the face of the conservatives faux adherence to the founders "original intent". I can see how Rubio the Vacant remains in the cave, but Cruz is intelligent enough to know better.
There seems to be a complete absence of logic or rational ideas in what passes for conservative thought. Economic thought is perverted and bent to suit the donor class. A serious, rational approach to climate science and international affairs is out the window replaced by bluster and threats.
I will vote for Hillary as she is the only choice to avoid complete disaster.
There seems to be a complete absence of logic or rational ideas in what passes for conservative thought. Economic thought is perverted and bent to suit the donor class. A serious, rational approach to climate science and international affairs is out the window replaced by bluster and threats.
I will vote for Hillary as she is the only choice to avoid complete disaster.
79
if Rubio wins it all I will checking permanent entry status in a number of countries ranging from Australia and Canada to the lovely 3rd world country of Zambia. This old Viet Nam vet has been there, done that, with these nutcases and has no more energy to "save the nation" from itself, specifically the GOP right wing nutcases and just as specifically the rest of a dumbed down, rabidly apathetic majority, just waiting to be fleeced...again.
207
This is another Viet-Nam vet who is thinking the same thing. Vote Democrats, even if you don't get Bernie.
5
Contrary to any other country save Erithrea the US would continue to want yearly income tax returns; you'd be double taxed and have a hard time, as an American, opening an account abroad, thanks to FATCA. The US: not easy to get in, hard to get out.
2
Look into Tanzania. Some interesting things happening after the election of a new president. Also Botswana. Well governed democracy. Capitalism is not unchecked.
1
Rubio doesn't even look old enough to be president.
The persistence of interest in this utterly vapid airhead continues to astound me.
The persistence of interest in this utterly vapid airhead continues to astound me.
105
I would add the word "dangerous" following the word vapid in your last sentence.
1
"The persistence of interest in this utterly vapid airhead (Marco Rubio) continues to astound me." -Steve Bolger. Cannot agree with you more.
And after a few months of a national campaign, we'll all be talking about the "annoyance factor". No worry, Trump will soon take him apart.
How anyone can still believe that large tax cuts create jobs after the historic collapse of the economy in 2008/9 following seven years of just that is reckless, stupid and suicidal.
150
How anyone can think the tax decreases of 2% in the early 2000s caused the economic collapse in 08 is laughable.
"Mr. Rubio is proposing . . .completely eliminating taxes on investment income — which would mean, for example, that Mitt Romney would end up owing precisely zero in federal taxes."
There is a reason why Republicans no longer trust their own politicians, and turn instead to a gonzo Democrat like Donald Trump.
There is a reason why Republicans no longer trust their own politicians, and turn instead to a gonzo Democrat like Donald Trump.
29
Rubio, Trump or (let's not forget) Cruz in the White House would be a disaster for the 99% and the future of America. But that won't stop Republican boobs in the 99% from voting for for anyone of them. Republican boobs have their reasons: anti-gay, anti-Muslim, anti- immigrant, anti-science, Obama hater, Hillary hater, Obama Care hater, global-warming denier, religious extremism, worship of the pursuit of wealth, True Believer in what their candidate says--regardless of facts, evidence, including their candidate contradicting himself...in his next sentence.
As scary as Trump, Rubio and Cruz are, what is even scarier is the Republican boob base. America MUST do a better job educating the populace and rebuilding the wall between church and state.
As scary as Trump, Rubio and Cruz are, what is even scarier is the Republican boob base. America MUST do a better job educating the populace and rebuilding the wall between church and state.
415
These Republican voters are the same people that thought Palin would be an effective VP. I think that they would vote for a ham sandwich if that was on their ticket as the nominee.
1
Thank you! I immigrated to the USA 35 years ago from Middle Europe, and I am also aghast at the choices 50% (or more) of this country make every election cycle. The uninformed masses are the problem, the brainwashed, and often religious boobs that ignore doomed and ruinous economic, environmental and foreign policies pushed by the Republicans. But how can we educate them while they are glued to FOX on TV and only read stuff that supports and even radicalizes their already self-hurting beliefs?
2
These are long term issues that have arisen because the society is
no longer interested in or capable of educating most of its youth to do much
more than answer multiple choice questions on an interminable number
of skills based assessment tests within inadequately funded schools. A culture that confuses technical skills
with reasoning and imagination nurturing cannot expect to do anything
more than create ignorant naifs/boobs addicted to checking their screens.
no longer interested in or capable of educating most of its youth to do much
more than answer multiple choice questions on an interminable number
of skills based assessment tests within inadequately funded schools. A culture that confuses technical skills
with reasoning and imagination nurturing cannot expect to do anything
more than create ignorant naifs/boobs addicted to checking their screens.
1
If machine politics and propaganda rule, then I will not need to bother voting.
Rigged markets and rigged elections are going to be America's undoing. You'll never see a healthy economy without good jobs and a healthy middle class and you'll never see those again without free markets and a functional democracy.
Rigged markets and rigged elections are going to be America's undoing. You'll never see a healthy economy without good jobs and a healthy middle class and you'll never see those again without free markets and a functional democracy.
78
I'll get the "I Helped Kill Roe," t-shirts printed up. Or would you orefer the "I Helped Invade Syria," model?
4
Giving up doesn't help.
2
Not to vote is the worst sin. It's not only irresponsible, in this election year, it's unpardonable.
Republican ideology always founders on the laws of arithmetic.
138
Founders is the wrong word. It thrives despite the laws of arithmetic. See, e.g., Kansas where they keep doubling down despite the laws of arithmetic.
1
However, it does not always flounder (I believe is what you meant) at the voting booth.
I agree that Rubio needs to be called out and seen more accurately. He is capable of presenting well. The question seems to me to be what lies behind that. I have become suspicious of what sort of president Rubio would be not only because of the policies he advocates, as addressed here, but also because I have heard him say things that suggest to me he doesn't even understand at least some of those policies. If I had to put a label on the profile I see, I would choose "lightweight" -- a lightweight giving voice to flawed policies.
238
Diana...don't you think Hillary should be called out on all of her blatant lies? Gruber much?
But don't you see, Rubio is a marionette. There's no need for him to understand anything. Predictable. The strings make him move.
Trump on the other hand seems to respond more to a random number generator in his head. For sure, it's an unfamiliar dangerous time for the establishment winners. For the rest of us, the 99%, it's a real crap-shoot.
Trump on the other hand seems to respond more to a random number generator in his head. For sure, it's an unfamiliar dangerous time for the establishment winners. For the rest of us, the 99%, it's a real crap-shoot.
2
Or, as we say in our house, "an empty suit".
Marco Rubio reminds me of a wind up doll. If your column is accurate and the GOP establishment pull some sort of coup against Trump in favor of Rubio, there will be much dancing and merriment in Las Vegas and Wichita.
The wealthy mega donors who are putting their money on the candidate most likely to be obedient and compliant with their wishes are very happy with windup Marco. He's the perfect blend of donor goals: hardline policy in foreign affairs and of course extreme support for Israel as Sheldon wishes, and a domestic policy based on privatizing entitlements, supply side economics, deregulation, and a buildup of military spending and let's not forget of course, a strictly anti-environmentalist policy.
Add in a good dose of religious fervor to infect and change laws affecting church and state, and man you have a perfect GOP dream. But only if u are Sitting in Las Vegas or Wichita, pulling the strings on your own personal political party puppet.
The wealthy mega donors who are putting their money on the candidate most likely to be obedient and compliant with their wishes are very happy with windup Marco. He's the perfect blend of donor goals: hardline policy in foreign affairs and of course extreme support for Israel as Sheldon wishes, and a domestic policy based on privatizing entitlements, supply side economics, deregulation, and a buildup of military spending and let's not forget of course, a strictly anti-environmentalist policy.
Add in a good dose of religious fervor to infect and change laws affecting church and state, and man you have a perfect GOP dream. But only if u are Sitting in Las Vegas or Wichita, pulling the strings on your own personal political party puppet.
468
Can anybody remember Dan Quayle? What makes Rubio substantially different from that one-time candidate for VP? Nixon famously defended him by saying, "I've met with Mr. Quayle and I found him far from an intellectual lightweight"? (With his groomed hair, John Edwards was also cut from the same cloth as Quayle and Rubio, even though Edwards ran for Democrat VP.)
1
My recommendation to Bernie's campaign: avoid the careful lure of ideas without consequences, the freedom that seduces all sides into believing new freedom is achieved apart from responsible acts. Political victories are physical and territorial, they require the palace be dismantled, the palace guards scattered or immobilized, their acts identified with their self-interests against the peoples.
The most important thing you can do is fight for candidates down line! Commit to changing the Senate and House--to putting a Democratic in every seat to counter entrenched Big Money interests! Dig deeper into the states: challenge every governor and legislature to get on board with the revolution. Call them out by name! Embrace them with love. Run against the entire establishment. Require the oligarchs to defend against common sense in every quarter, dominate the physical narrative: attack fail-safe gerrymandered districts, states run for the benefit of outside interests; list the broken promises and move on before they catch up. Maneuver so swiftly they are caught unprepared.
You need the Congress and the states to win as you occupy! Your stratagem should broaden its touch along political, electoral lines.
The Art of War says attack to capture the whole. "The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin." "The opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself."
The most important thing you can do is fight for candidates down line! Commit to changing the Senate and House--to putting a Democratic in every seat to counter entrenched Big Money interests! Dig deeper into the states: challenge every governor and legislature to get on board with the revolution. Call them out by name! Embrace them with love. Run against the entire establishment. Require the oligarchs to defend against common sense in every quarter, dominate the physical narrative: attack fail-safe gerrymandered districts, states run for the benefit of outside interests; list the broken promises and move on before they catch up. Maneuver so swiftly they are caught unprepared.
You need the Congress and the states to win as you occupy! Your stratagem should broaden its touch along political, electoral lines.
The Art of War says attack to capture the whole. "The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin." "The opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself."
169
Excellent! Run for school boards and community boards! Either we're a community or we're warring factions. With one, there is hope, with the other, none. "Embrace them with love..." And that means spreading attractive petals to attract the bees, rather than simply launching spears at those in office.
2
I agree with your (Walter Rhett) agenda for Bernie Sanders, but if he were elected president, he would be too busy to fight a totally committed campaign to make deep changes in campaign finance and pro-public regulations. Yes, inspire the masses and especially the young toward liberal engagement, which he has made a start, and convince the legislative representatives to ask for more for their communities; but do it as an activist Senator, and now, a national figure. The presidency is too important and the needs too urgent and critical to elect a strongly ideologic president, which would have the immediate challenge of increased gridlock or an oversized compromise of what he believes in.
Hillary Clinton has been bound by innuendo and unprecedented negative scrutiny, but she is strong, intelligence knows how to play the game as it is currently played, and she has a good heart as evidenced by her career thus far.
Hillary Clinton has been bound by innuendo and unprecedented negative scrutiny, but she is strong, intelligence knows how to play the game as it is currently played, and she has a good heart as evidenced by her career thus far.
3
The nice thing about Republicanism is that it's a religion...not a political movement.
So whether the 'policy' is economics, taxes, foreign policy, voting rights, uterine rights, speech rights, gun rights, what's important is not evidence or history supporting the policy claim, but 'faith' in the policy and blind, evangelical-like devotion through mindless repetition.
That's why Marco Rubio's speech Saturday night was full of "God's will", a phrase the battery-operated World-War-III-and-Tax-Cut Ken Doll repeated five times to his catatonic, GOP tent revival audience.
Marco Rubio never spent much time in the real economic and business world -- his entire callow adulthood has been spent either feeding at the taxpayer or GOP millionaire donor trough, so you'll excuse him when he mistakenly charges personal expenses to the GOP or the American Taxpayer Express Card instead of paying for anything himself.
As for Mr. Trump, his signature proposal is to build (and maintain) a 1300-mile wall financed by Mexican taxpayers is a little short on details and reality and is predicated on a financial fantasy.
Trump's other plan to deport 11 million illegals lacks 100% detail and financing and would require a massive increase in taxes to finance that East German Stasi-like effort to locate and evict 11 million people...it would also Make America Fascist Again.
But never mind, when you're preaching to a Republican church choir, Grand Old Pandering Trumps reality 10 times out of 10.
So whether the 'policy' is economics, taxes, foreign policy, voting rights, uterine rights, speech rights, gun rights, what's important is not evidence or history supporting the policy claim, but 'faith' in the policy and blind, evangelical-like devotion through mindless repetition.
That's why Marco Rubio's speech Saturday night was full of "God's will", a phrase the battery-operated World-War-III-and-Tax-Cut Ken Doll repeated five times to his catatonic, GOP tent revival audience.
Marco Rubio never spent much time in the real economic and business world -- his entire callow adulthood has been spent either feeding at the taxpayer or GOP millionaire donor trough, so you'll excuse him when he mistakenly charges personal expenses to the GOP or the American Taxpayer Express Card instead of paying for anything himself.
As for Mr. Trump, his signature proposal is to build (and maintain) a 1300-mile wall financed by Mexican taxpayers is a little short on details and reality and is predicated on a financial fantasy.
Trump's other plan to deport 11 million illegals lacks 100% detail and financing and would require a massive increase in taxes to finance that East German Stasi-like effort to locate and evict 11 million people...it would also Make America Fascist Again.
But never mind, when you're preaching to a Republican church choir, Grand Old Pandering Trumps reality 10 times out of 10.
987
Where did you learn to reason this well? Well done and totally on point.
1
Faith. That's why whenever a conservative tanks an economy, drives up unemployment and closes down a government (maybe poisons a city water supply?), the Party claims they failed because they weren't "conservative" enough.
5
Exactly correct, Socrates. Except that Republican religion is not a nice thing.
5
"If prediction markets (and most hardheaded analysis) are to be believed, Hillary Clinton, having demonstrated her staying power, is the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic nomination." Of course the "hardheaded" analysis is from the NYT's Upshot--always the Sanders doomsayer--and the "prediction market" a site called prediction.com.
Thank goodness. For a minute there us "happy dreamers" (your term Krugman) thought we might actually see democracy in action. A race in which people discuss policies, not just personalities, platitudes and pandering.
The reason Krugman & Co. and Hillary supporters are so dangerous is they are on a full court press to convince supposed progressives that asking for less leads to more. I have never seen the strategy employed before where the candidate that aspires for less is the one who will ultimately get us more.
Of course it all depends on the issue, because you will never hear Krugman & Co. call equal pay a "happy dream", "unrealistic", "something that will ever, ever happen," because their candidate supports it. And to cast pessimism on this policy might hurt Hillary's feminist brand.
But when it comes to single payer, debt free higher education, a $15 minimum wage, vacation/sick leave--those polices are simply unachievable.
Think about it--the supposed progressive Hillary and her pundits are trying their best to temper any enthusiasm for policies that actually will help the People.
And that is very dangerous.
Thank goodness. For a minute there us "happy dreamers" (your term Krugman) thought we might actually see democracy in action. A race in which people discuss policies, not just personalities, platitudes and pandering.
The reason Krugman & Co. and Hillary supporters are so dangerous is they are on a full court press to convince supposed progressives that asking for less leads to more. I have never seen the strategy employed before where the candidate that aspires for less is the one who will ultimately get us more.
Of course it all depends on the issue, because you will never hear Krugman & Co. call equal pay a "happy dream", "unrealistic", "something that will ever, ever happen," because their candidate supports it. And to cast pessimism on this policy might hurt Hillary's feminist brand.
But when it comes to single payer, debt free higher education, a $15 minimum wage, vacation/sick leave--those polices are simply unachievable.
Think about it--the supposed progressive Hillary and her pundits are trying their best to temper any enthusiasm for policies that actually will help the People.
And that is very dangerous.
218
@ScottW
Chapel Hill, NC
Er...you have just delivered a river of platitudes...and you don't even know it apparently.
Chapel Hill, NC
Er...you have just delivered a river of platitudes...and you don't even know it apparently.
48
Er...you have just proven your Socialist side...and your idiocy. Who will pay for all the Socialist programs Hillary and Bernie, both want? When will Liberals understand you don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg? When the 1% finally say, "That's it, I quit...I am being penalized for my hard work and investment in my company (ies)" ?
I do not believe that Mrs Clinton is lowering the dreams of Democrats. You write : "the supposed progressive Hillary and her pundits are trying their best to temper any enthusiasm for policies that actually will help the People."
Please read her speach after the Nevada Caucuses last Saturday, and I partially quote from the Dallas News :
Clinton spoke to a crowd of about 2,000 people in a gymnasium at Texas Southern University, a historically black university in Houston. She touched on many racial disparity issues, like poverty and poor water quality in Flint, Mich.
“Let’s imagine together a world where no child grows up in the shadow of discrimination or the specter of deportation,” Clinton said.
“If we listen to the hopes and the heartaches of hard-working people across American, it is clear there is so much more we have to do,” Clinton said.
A line of excited Clinton supporters began to form outside the event more than five hours before she was set to speak.'
I believe this is a candidate who has plans for the aspirations of the American people. Not someone who wants to dampen hopes.
Please read her speach after the Nevada Caucuses last Saturday, and I partially quote from the Dallas News :
Clinton spoke to a crowd of about 2,000 people in a gymnasium at Texas Southern University, a historically black university in Houston. She touched on many racial disparity issues, like poverty and poor water quality in Flint, Mich.
“Let’s imagine together a world where no child grows up in the shadow of discrimination or the specter of deportation,” Clinton said.
“If we listen to the hopes and the heartaches of hard-working people across American, it is clear there is so much more we have to do,” Clinton said.
A line of excited Clinton supporters began to form outside the event more than five hours before she was set to speak.'
I believe this is a candidate who has plans for the aspirations of the American people. Not someone who wants to dampen hopes.
17
I see the BernieBots are out in force-- both the sincere ones and the others.
So I will re-post a reply I made earlier:
"It's the Supreme Court, stupid."
I don't care what Hillary's detailed economic policies are. The current Court has 4 Justices who would vote against Citizens United. They were appointed by
"evil triangulator Clinton" and
"evil compromiser Obama".
Sorry, but Hillary is the best bet to beat any Republican ticket. Imagine Rubio with Kasich as VP running against Bernie. It's Bush/Cheney all over again, and although Gore did actually win, let's not forget the factors that resulted in the final outcome:
A "compassionate conservative" you would "like to have a beer with" against a policy wonk that people didn't relate to, with the addition of righteous truth-telling Ralph syphoning off some votes. And then there's Barack Obama, a personable young man with a charming family and an ethnic identity, running against a grumpy, opinionated, Old, white guy with unrealistic expectations. Funny similarity, eh?
Hillary is a much more attractive candidate in the general election, and please don't try to tell me that Republican women will not cross over for her, as well as Republican men concerned with foreign policy.
Let's take back the governorships and the Senate and House, and then maybe some of Bernie's ideas can actually be realized. (And if you like, run a young "progressive" challenger against Hillary in 2020.)
So I will re-post a reply I made earlier:
"It's the Supreme Court, stupid."
I don't care what Hillary's detailed economic policies are. The current Court has 4 Justices who would vote against Citizens United. They were appointed by
"evil triangulator Clinton" and
"evil compromiser Obama".
Sorry, but Hillary is the best bet to beat any Republican ticket. Imagine Rubio with Kasich as VP running against Bernie. It's Bush/Cheney all over again, and although Gore did actually win, let's not forget the factors that resulted in the final outcome:
A "compassionate conservative" you would "like to have a beer with" against a policy wonk that people didn't relate to, with the addition of righteous truth-telling Ralph syphoning off some votes. And then there's Barack Obama, a personable young man with a charming family and an ethnic identity, running against a grumpy, opinionated, Old, white guy with unrealistic expectations. Funny similarity, eh?
Hillary is a much more attractive candidate in the general election, and please don't try to tell me that Republican women will not cross over for her, as well as Republican men concerned with foreign policy.
Let's take back the governorships and the Senate and House, and then maybe some of Bernie's ideas can actually be realized. (And if you like, run a young "progressive" challenger against Hillary in 2020.)
268
She is less electable than Sanders in matchups with republicans.
I have a message for all Hillary supporters: it is the supreme court, stupid.
Vote for Hillary now and Trump will be nominating next Supreme Court justices.
I have a message for all Hillary supporters: it is the supreme court, stupid.
Vote for Hillary now and Trump will be nominating next Supreme Court justices.
48
Ron,
Bernie supporter 1: Hah, Hillary was way up in the polls a month ago and look how she only won by 5%!
Bernie supporter 2: Hah, a poll 10 months before the general election shows that Hillary would lose to some Republicans!
This is why it's hard to tell which BerniBots are sincere and which are Republican trolls who only want to weaken Hillary.
Bernie supporter 1: Hah, Hillary was way up in the polls a month ago and look how she only won by 5%!
Bernie supporter 2: Hah, a poll 10 months before the general election shows that Hillary would lose to some Republicans!
This is why it's hard to tell which BerniBots are sincere and which are Republican trolls who only want to weaken Hillary.
25
What makes you think Clinton will get her way with the Supreme Court nominees? What makes you think Clinton will get more voters out to vote Democratic than Sanders will?
1
I dont care what happens on the republican side, but PK please give us a break with your support of Hillary Clinton.
70
It won't happen. Krugman is a shill on some issues. He is suddenly concerned about foreign policy again, but he doesn't dwell on it too much, because Clinton only looks less bad in comparison with the Republicans without actually looking good.
I am pragmatic enough to vote lesser of two evils in November, but we really need serious change in this country. Krugman just wants a kinder gentler set of corporate warmongers.
I am pragmatic enough to vote lesser of two evils in November, but we really need serious change in this country. Krugman just wants a kinder gentler set of corporate warmongers.
2
"His ideas on domestic policy are deeply ignorant and irresponsible, and would be disastrous if put into effect."
You're talking about president Obama and the Affordable Care Act, right? You know, the lie about being able to keep your doctor/plan, and reducing the average annual premiums by $2500, and how all those uninsured would now be covered by our benevolent federal government (uh, taxpayers). And if you don't do your part, you will be fined (oops, I mean taxed) for being mean-spirited. The plan that was so wonderfully conceived and thoroughly implemented that some health insurance organizations are considering pulling out of the so-called "marketplace" because they are losing money. Just one more step to a single-payer system...
"So don’t let anyone tell you that the Republican primary is a fight between a crazy guy and someone reasonable. It’s idiosyncratic, self-invented crankery versus establishment-approved crankery, and it’s not at all clear which is worse."
That same argument applies to the Democrats, Paul, but as usual you don't have the moral courage to go there. Besides, I don't see any reasonable person in either the Dems or Repubs this election cycle.
You're talking about president Obama and the Affordable Care Act, right? You know, the lie about being able to keep your doctor/plan, and reducing the average annual premiums by $2500, and how all those uninsured would now be covered by our benevolent federal government (uh, taxpayers). And if you don't do your part, you will be fined (oops, I mean taxed) for being mean-spirited. The plan that was so wonderfully conceived and thoroughly implemented that some health insurance organizations are considering pulling out of the so-called "marketplace" because they are losing money. Just one more step to a single-payer system...
"So don’t let anyone tell you that the Republican primary is a fight between a crazy guy and someone reasonable. It’s idiosyncratic, self-invented crankery versus establishment-approved crankery, and it’s not at all clear which is worse."
That same argument applies to the Democrats, Paul, but as usual you don't have the moral courage to go there. Besides, I don't see any reasonable person in either the Dems or Repubs this election cycle.
5
There are 19,000,000 reasons to support the ACA, and none of those include the simple fact that the cost curve has in fact been bent, with a near 50% reduction in the rate of overall cost increase. The next step is reining in out of pocket costs and getting Red State gov's to accept the Medicare expansion.
And yes there is a sensible moderate running, her name is Hillary.
And yes there is a sensible moderate running, her name is Hillary.
2
Well, although it's been said before here we go:
He 'lied" when he said you could keep your plan. That cancelled plan was not really a plan, it was a fig leaf that did not cover enough and allowed a company to cancel as soon as you got sick. Of course they can't offer that for 250.00 per month. And forget pre-existing condition coverage.
2) Never heard about reducing fees 2500 per month, so I guess that is something you heard Obama say. Perhaps source would be in order.
3) Everybody will be covered by the benevolent federal Government. Well, Southern states will not expand Medicaid, paid for by the Federal government. One cannot blame Obama for that, or maybe in the South, you can.
4) If you don't buy insurance you will be fined. People need health insurance as they age. Any system will need all people to pay in to it for two simple reasons : A) aging and getting sick is inevitable and full participation insures enough money to remain solvent B) Young people still get in accidents, get sick etc and do show up at emergency rooms, only to run up massive bills and cost shift to everyone else. Unless you allow people to "die on the sidewalk" there is no other solution for this. Add in the medical BK's clogging the system and it is simply unworkable.
4) As far as some companies pulling out, of course they are upset. Things have changed and they cannot gorge people without at least some competition and this makes them upset.
This can't be that hard to comprehend.
He 'lied" when he said you could keep your plan. That cancelled plan was not really a plan, it was a fig leaf that did not cover enough and allowed a company to cancel as soon as you got sick. Of course they can't offer that for 250.00 per month. And forget pre-existing condition coverage.
2) Never heard about reducing fees 2500 per month, so I guess that is something you heard Obama say. Perhaps source would be in order.
3) Everybody will be covered by the benevolent federal Government. Well, Southern states will not expand Medicaid, paid for by the Federal government. One cannot blame Obama for that, or maybe in the South, you can.
4) If you don't buy insurance you will be fined. People need health insurance as they age. Any system will need all people to pay in to it for two simple reasons : A) aging and getting sick is inevitable and full participation insures enough money to remain solvent B) Young people still get in accidents, get sick etc and do show up at emergency rooms, only to run up massive bills and cost shift to everyone else. Unless you allow people to "die on the sidewalk" there is no other solution for this. Add in the medical BK's clogging the system and it is simply unworkable.
4) As far as some companies pulling out, of course they are upset. Things have changed and they cannot gorge people without at least some competition and this makes them upset.
This can't be that hard to comprehend.
1
Yes, a few people not being able to keep their doctors in exchange for the uninsured rate being the lowest since those figures have been recorded (not to mention the fact that health care inflation has slowed even more than predicted) is EXACTLY like doubling down on the misguided supply-side policies that bust the budget and exacerbate economic inequality every time they're tried. How are you not able to see that these two things are in no way equivalent? Conservative media has been pushing the "both sides do it" false equivalence thing for so long, you guys have become totally unmoored from reality.
2
"The other man, of course, has very peculiar hair."
Really Paul, I thought better of you.
This is a reflection on you, not Sanders.
Compared to the fascinating Picketty analysis of the intersection between US politics and economics throughout the 20th Century in the Guardian a few days ago, it's not in the same league.
People who like Bernie get it: it's not about hair (see: Einstein). It's about how they've lived their lives, the quality of their ideas and how they would like to make this country a better place to live.
From a deserving Nobel winner, I only wish that you observed and commented on the nation's politics with the seriousness that your informed view might offer.
Too bad you have effectively muted the authority of your voice with such a cheap shot.
Really Paul, I thought better of you.
This is a reflection on you, not Sanders.
Compared to the fascinating Picketty analysis of the intersection between US politics and economics throughout the 20th Century in the Guardian a few days ago, it's not in the same league.
People who like Bernie get it: it's not about hair (see: Einstein). It's about how they've lived their lives, the quality of their ideas and how they would like to make this country a better place to live.
From a deserving Nobel winner, I only wish that you observed and commented on the nation's politics with the seriousness that your informed view might offer.
Too bad you have effectively muted the authority of your voice with such a cheap shot.
14
He was not criticizing Bernie, he was criticizing Trump. Did you finish reading the column? Cliff notes: it was about Trump and Rubio
149
Uhhh ... he was talking about the Republicans, i.e. Trump.
8
He was talking about Donald Trump.
5
Hillary has 10 times the delegates and has actually lost the popular vote. So much for her "staying power". It seems that Krugman chooses to ignore her criminal activities and cover-ups but that is to be expected. Krugman's political affiliations with the radical left drive him to write these articles even though they have nothing to do with economics. Even if they did, you can't trust what he says because it is all tainted by his political biases and his radical agenda, not economic theory.
10
Interesting comment. Did you know that Hillary had more votes and Obama had more delegates? Hmmm?
2
What criminal activities? Be specific. Do you mean lies made up by Republicans? And by the way, I'm not a Hillary supporter.
5
" Krugman's political affiliations with the radical left drive him to write these articles even though they have nothing to do with economics. "
Krugman and the "radical left." Too funny.
Krugman and the "radical left." Too funny.
2
The current pledged delegate count in the Democratic race, after Mr. Sanders' landslide victory in New Hampshire and near ties in Iowa and Nevada, is 51-51. Aren't you, Professor Krugman, and your colleagues at The New York Times embarrassed by your lack of professionalism?
47
The super-delegates have opted for Hillary!
1
Delegate count 500 Clinton 70 Bernie. Now you could Harp about popular vote but that is not the how it works. McGovern received 39% and won only one state. Has anyone considered the delegste sstem was put in place was to weed out weak candidates like Brrnie. How is Bernie even a contender now?
2
Losing by 5 percent (closer to 6) isn't a "near-tie.
It can't have been much over one month ago that Paul Krugman was telling us that the Donald's success revealed deep dark secrets about the GOP.
The GOP establishment, he intoned, had created the ugly stew of paranoia and resentment that Trump was exploiting.
Today Paul Krugman tells us with the same conviction that Trump's success shows the alienation of much of the base from the Republican establishment. The battered GOP establishment is rallying around Marco Rubio as its anti-Trump.
Has Krugman changed his mind or is this more opportunism as usual?
The GOP establishment, he intoned, had created the ugly stew of paranoia and resentment that Trump was exploiting.
Today Paul Krugman tells us with the same conviction that Trump's success shows the alienation of much of the base from the Republican establishment. The battered GOP establishment is rallying around Marco Rubio as its anti-Trump.
Has Krugman changed his mind or is this more opportunism as usual?
6
I'm not a big Krugman fan, but there is no contradiction there. The Republican establishment is about greed, not social issues, but they used the social issues to obtain votes for their economic policies. Now Trump is bringing out the clash in interests, though he himself is utterly incoherent. He is a vessel for the feelings of betrayal of many people.
They ought to vote Bernie but the Trump rage is also tied to xenophobia.
They ought to vote Bernie but the Trump rage is also tied to xenophobia.
Ian, it's pretty simple really. The GOP created and exploited the conditions that make Trump's candidacy viable...and now, to their great horror and fear, have lost control of those conditions. Trump is the candidate the GOP deserves.
1
Those two propositions seem perfectly consistent to me. What did I miss?
Much like the Saudis, the Republican establishment has fed and coddled its tiger for many years, but now the tiger is looking back at it and seeing lunch.
Much like the Saudis, the Republican establishment has fed and coddled its tiger for many years, but now the tiger is looking back at it and seeing lunch.
2
Mr. Rubio gets his economic theories from ALEC and Grover Nordquist... The tax cuts will inevitably led to a deficit and that, in turn, will require more cuts to social services because we MUST continue to fund wars and subsidize businesses. It's bad economics but I, for one, do not believe it is uniformed. It will accomplish precisely the agenda sought by the oligarchs and social Darwinists who are underwriting Mr. Rubio's campaign.
68
While I agree with you about the cranks in the GOP, I disagree with your glib premise of Hillary Clinton's staying power.
Hillary has the machine that can win the Democratic nomination. That much is true. But Hillary does not have the youth vote, and its questionable whether or not she has the Latino vote.
Hillary has the Democratic establishment vote, and as we have seen, this is not a year for the establishment in either party. Democrats rely on numbers to get elected, and the numbers weren't there in the last mid-terms. The Democratic establishment was not strong enough to prevent the cranks from taking over the Senate, much less regaining control of the House.
Look at it this way, Professor. If Bernie Sanders were the nominee, would his young voters come out? Yes. Would the Democratic establishment come out and support him against any one of the three cranks? Of course. Conversely, if Hillary Clinton were the candidate, would the establishment come out? Certainly. Would the youth vote turn out? Maybe, but not certainly, and maybe not in large enough numbers to make the difference.
By adhering so vehemently to your 'safe' candidate of Hillary Clinton, you may just be guaranteeing the election of one of your three cranks. Bernie Sanders is not a crank. He's closer to FDR than any candidate we have seen since FDR's death. Hillary, like her husband Bill, is closer to Reagan than any Democrat in the last 35 years. I hope you will look more closely at your endorsement.
Hillary has the machine that can win the Democratic nomination. That much is true. But Hillary does not have the youth vote, and its questionable whether or not she has the Latino vote.
Hillary has the Democratic establishment vote, and as we have seen, this is not a year for the establishment in either party. Democrats rely on numbers to get elected, and the numbers weren't there in the last mid-terms. The Democratic establishment was not strong enough to prevent the cranks from taking over the Senate, much less regaining control of the House.
Look at it this way, Professor. If Bernie Sanders were the nominee, would his young voters come out? Yes. Would the Democratic establishment come out and support him against any one of the three cranks? Of course. Conversely, if Hillary Clinton were the candidate, would the establishment come out? Certainly. Would the youth vote turn out? Maybe, but not certainly, and maybe not in large enough numbers to make the difference.
By adhering so vehemently to your 'safe' candidate of Hillary Clinton, you may just be guaranteeing the election of one of your three cranks. Bernie Sanders is not a crank. He's closer to FDR than any candidate we have seen since FDR's death. Hillary, like her husband Bill, is closer to Reagan than any Democrat in the last 35 years. I hope you will look more closely at your endorsement.
78
Just remember, Once she's elected, you'll find all her campaign-promises in a dumpster, out behind the Whitehouse!
What if they run together?
Bernie Sanders is not FDR. Time to read history more closely & realize how shrewdly FDR manipulated & massaged the opposition. Unlike Sanders who is like a sledge hammer. The 2 personalities could not have been more different.
4
Hillary, staying power? Please Paul even with her uber connections in Nevada, Harry Reid and Sheldon Adelson , she barely squeaked by. Is this really who you want running the country, a president who would put the interests of WallStreet and A.I.P.A.C. before those of America? Why didn't you mention the incident In 2008 when The Clinton Machine SUED the culinary workers union when they backed President Obama in the primaries. If America wants more of the same, a devastated middle class and trillions more spent on the unending war in the M.E. then Hillarys your girl, ironically it seems other Jews including Bernie and over half the population of Israel (pick up a copy of Harratz the excellent Israeli daily not the throw away owned by Adelson)are the only ones who understand what's going on and are deeply concerned. If you're a liberal Paul we are really in trouble. Oh and one more thing,The London Financial Times, hardly a liberal paper, thinks Hillary is the most friendly to Wall Street over even the Republican candidates, that should give us pause to think about who is good for America and who is good for the one percent.
28
Hillary may be too friendly to Wall Street, but in the end it will come down to Hillary or Bernie versus Trump, Rubio or Cruz. It is fine for Bernie's supporters to support their candidate now, but if they pout and go home because Hillary is the Democratic candidate for President then guess who wins the election? If you think that there is no difference between Hillary and any of the probable Republican candidates you will learn that there is a difference.
2
Despite being a narcissist, sexist xenophobe, on major issues Trump is more progressive than Hillary, amazing but true:
Trump opposes cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid - she doesn't.
Trump supports universal health care - she doesn't
Trump was critical of the Iraq war - she wasn't
Trump wants to insulate politics from Wall Street - she is the preferred Wall Street candidate.
If people vote on issues not labels, a ton of progressives will have a conundrum. That's why she loses to him in national match-ups.
http://fb.me/6o1Hoyq3Q
Trump opposes cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid - she doesn't.
Trump supports universal health care - she doesn't
Trump was critical of the Iraq war - she wasn't
Trump wants to insulate politics from Wall Street - she is the preferred Wall Street candidate.
If people vote on issues not labels, a ton of progressives will have a conundrum. That's why she loses to him in national match-ups.
http://fb.me/6o1Hoyq3Q
23
Trump no longer favors universal health care. His tax plan would lead to larger deficits than Bush and Obama combined. He would increase military spending and has never said that he is against more war. And he spreads a message of hate. What's not to like?
14
"Trump opposes cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid... Trump supports universal health care..."
No. Trump opens his mouth and says words, and sometimes some of them sound like the above. That's all.
No. Trump opens his mouth and says words, and sometimes some of them sound like the above. That's all.
2
At the risk of upsetting a pat analysis, Ron T, does it occur to you that Donald Trump will say and has said anything he wishes in order to win a primary? Trump's core supporters don't care what he says, as long as he says it forcefully and tosses in an insult or two while saying it.
3
Lest we forget. During times of war - both I and II - the top Federal tax rate on the wealthiest Americans was over 90%. Look it up.
I guess back then those to whom much was given expected to give much back to their society when much was needed.
In these times of never ending war in the Middle East, with the blessing of and the urging of escalation of by the GOP and its candidates (think carpet bombing and glowing sands), the unending war on terror, on crime, on minorities on drugs and - I would submit - those proposed on women, on immigrants, on the poor, the unemployed and the elderly surely such a rate is justified today.
But, today, those who stole much seem to feel no such responsibility to give anything back to the society from which it was so flagrantly and immorally taken.
I guess back then those to whom much was given expected to give much back to their society when much was needed.
In these times of never ending war in the Middle East, with the blessing of and the urging of escalation of by the GOP and its candidates (think carpet bombing and glowing sands), the unending war on terror, on crime, on minorities on drugs and - I would submit - those proposed on women, on immigrants, on the poor, the unemployed and the elderly surely such a rate is justified today.
But, today, those who stole much seem to feel no such responsibility to give anything back to the society from which it was so flagrantly and immorally taken.
59
A quibble. I believe the highest tax rate in WWI was about 67%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Revenue_Act_of_1917
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Revenue_Act_of_1917
We're shocked that a GOP front-runner is a young, good-looking pitchman for ideas that warm the hearts of only the very rich.
Really?
Hoover Institute. Heritage Foundation. Cato Institute. American Legislative Executive Council. American Enterprise Institute.
According to Jane Mayer's "Dark Money," about 40 years ago some very rich people in this country such as Richard Mellon Scaife, John Olin, and the young Charles Koch, came to a brilliant conclusion: Because Americans were trained to listen to articulate, educated people, subsidize those whose philosophies revolved around rewarding America's "job creators" beyond your and my wildest dreams.
Toward that end, the Olin Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, and others were designed not just to avoid estate taxes but also to then funnel millions in "charitable" tax-deductible funds into think tanks where the thinking was pre-ordained.
People with fancy degrees wearing nice suits became ubiquitous, keening that nothing would raise revenue faster than lowering taxes. Now, we know that such a notion might be true when rich people are assessed, say, 80% of income. It's possible that The Beatles were so heavily taxed that one day they said the heck with it.
However, when the rich pay so little in taxes that they have billions to spend to influence who says what on your TV and actually decide the GOP candidate, perhaps we should shift our focus from Marco the ventriloquist's dummy to the man in the shadows jerking the strings.
Really?
Hoover Institute. Heritage Foundation. Cato Institute. American Legislative Executive Council. American Enterprise Institute.
According to Jane Mayer's "Dark Money," about 40 years ago some very rich people in this country such as Richard Mellon Scaife, John Olin, and the young Charles Koch, came to a brilliant conclusion: Because Americans were trained to listen to articulate, educated people, subsidize those whose philosophies revolved around rewarding America's "job creators" beyond your and my wildest dreams.
Toward that end, the Olin Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, and others were designed not just to avoid estate taxes but also to then funnel millions in "charitable" tax-deductible funds into think tanks where the thinking was pre-ordained.
People with fancy degrees wearing nice suits became ubiquitous, keening that nothing would raise revenue faster than lowering taxes. Now, we know that such a notion might be true when rich people are assessed, say, 80% of income. It's possible that The Beatles were so heavily taxed that one day they said the heck with it.
However, when the rich pay so little in taxes that they have billions to spend to influence who says what on your TV and actually decide the GOP candidate, perhaps we should shift our focus from Marco the ventriloquist's dummy to the man in the shadows jerking the strings.
113
In four short years the GOP's clown car has transformed into a ship of fools.
25
Krugman writes: “(Rubio’s) notions on foreign policy seem to boil down to the belief that America can bully everyone into doing its bidding”. This is exactly how I feel about Krugman’s candidate, Hillary Clinton.
Krugman writes: “But what I do know is that one shouldn’t treat establishment support as an indication that Mr. Rubio is moderate and sensible.” This is also describes to a T how I feel about Krugman’s candidate, Hillary Clinton.
Sure, Rubio is even worse than Clinton, but he doesn’t represent the Democratic Party. I fear that if Clinton gets elected, there will be no hope for the Democratic Party for the foreseeable future.
It's Bernie or bust. Worst case scenario -- Warren 2020.
Krugman writes: “But what I do know is that one shouldn’t treat establishment support as an indication that Mr. Rubio is moderate and sensible.” This is also describes to a T how I feel about Krugman’s candidate, Hillary Clinton.
Sure, Rubio is even worse than Clinton, but he doesn’t represent the Democratic Party. I fear that if Clinton gets elected, there will be no hope for the Democratic Party for the foreseeable future.
It's Bernie or bust. Worst case scenario -- Warren 2020.
19
Rubio's biggest claim to fame is that he has been a member of the Foreign affairs committee these past 4-5 years, with access to classified information that no other candidate in the race has access to. Probe a little further and you will discover that Rubio did and does not attend these meetings. His knowledge is not based on face to face meetings with the committee but at the flick of a finger he can access all the goodies. Now, imagine someone who is missing the context and all the nuances, because he is always missing in action at his job, no one knows what he does with his time, where he is. If the voters are smart, they will know that he is a Prop for the puppeteers behind him, the Republican masters of the universe and because he is good looking and young, speaks well, has a Latino last name, he can be manipulated into doing anything the masters command and demand.
2
"... Rubio is even worse than Clinton ..." Wow, as if the two were comparable. Rubio and Clinton are as different as night and day.
And "It's Bernie or bust. Worst case scenario -- Warren 2020." is pretty terrifying to many of us who remember where our passionate support of George McGovern led. The "worst case scenario" is so, so much worse than Warren 2020. Yikes!
And "It's Bernie or bust. Worst case scenario -- Warren 2020." is pretty terrifying to many of us who remember where our passionate support of George McGovern led. The "worst case scenario" is so, so much worse than Warren 2020. Yikes!
3
Does no one remember the phenomenal economic growth of the Eisenhower era when the middle class gained the prosperity that it has been losing since Reagan worked his magic on taxes? Then the highest tax rate for the top earners was over 90%.
Historically, our economy has boomed under progressive Republican administrations and tanked when the conservative Republicans gain control. Republicans, wake up and face the facts about economic policies that have never worked and will never work. I campaigned for Barry Goldwater and now realize how foolish I'd been about economics.
Historically, our economy has boomed under progressive Republican administrations and tanked when the conservative Republicans gain control. Republicans, wake up and face the facts about economic policies that have never worked and will never work. I campaigned for Barry Goldwater and now realize how foolish I'd been about economics.
24
Your argument also supports electing Democrats like FDR, Kennedy, LBJ ,etc.
3
There's another party who is taking orders from "elites" top-down where the elites at the top have proven themselves impotent brain-dead political losers for two generations. Know what party that is? With Trump leading the GOP field, you see signs the Useful Idiots of the right aren't buying the nonsense from their top. Can you say the same for the supporters of the candidate that is "the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic nomination?" (Hint: the answer is no.)
12
"Can you say the same for the supporters of the candidate that is "the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic nomination?" (Hint: the answer is no.)"
(1) I don't know what the answer to that question is. (2) Neither do you.
(1) I don't know what the answer to that question is. (2) Neither do you.
For Republicans, what the facts say can't contradict what they already "know" to be true: that low taxes on the rich are good for the economy. The people supporting Trump may not believe this, but the truth is, neither have many of the people who voted against Obama before. People vote with their gut, as Stephen Colbert aptly demonstrated, and the fact that supply-side economics is "voodoo" doesn't deter them. It's God, guns and gays for most GOP voters.
20
On this topic, I agree completely with Prof. Krugman. The idea that any of the other GOP candidates for president would be any better than Donald Trump is not supported by the evidence. None of them is qualified to occupy the White House.
38
"If prediction markets (and most hardheaded analysis) are to be believed, Hillary Clinton, having demonstrated her staying power, is the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic nomination." As analysis this might be right. But as with most of your commentary about the primary it feels more like gloating and support. In which case, if it is support, why not go all out. And give us some sense of what you like and dislike about her as possible president. And take some responsibility for the "lesser" evils she is likely commit.
11
"But as with most of your commentary about the primary it feels more like gloating and support."
That's funny: to me it feels like "There are two races and one of them has a prohibitive favorite running and the other one doesn't. Today I'm going to talk about the one that (1) doesn't appear to be boring as dirt and (2) represents a genuine menace to the nation."
That's funny: to me it feels like "There are two races and one of them has a prohibitive favorite running and the other one doesn't. Today I'm going to talk about the one that (1) doesn't appear to be boring as dirt and (2) represents a genuine menace to the nation."
1
You're absolutely right Robert. The entire first sentence could be omitted with no real effect on the balance of the column, which is actually quite good. It would be beneficial indeed to for Paul to bring his considerable analytic abilities to bear on the Clinton machine.
The “crankery” of which Paul Krugman writes is the 21st Century signature of the Republican Party.
Whether it’s the old trickle-down nonsense, now re-packaged by the Republican elite and sold under the Rubio brand, or the new, muddled populism of Donald Trump, the end result is the same.
Republicans -- young and old, faithful elite and angry outsider – have the same two mantras. Budget deficits are bad. Taxes are bad.
Getting the Republican brain to understand that cutting taxes on the rich leads to budget deficits, is like trying to pound a square peg into a much smaller, round hole.
Whether it’s the old trickle-down nonsense, now re-packaged by the Republican elite and sold under the Rubio brand, or the new, muddled populism of Donald Trump, the end result is the same.
Republicans -- young and old, faithful elite and angry outsider – have the same two mantras. Budget deficits are bad. Taxes are bad.
Getting the Republican brain to understand that cutting taxes on the rich leads to budget deficits, is like trying to pound a square peg into a much smaller, round hole.
19
“don’t let anyone tell you that the Republican primary is a fight between a crazy guy and someone reasonable. It’s idiosyncratic, self-invented crankery versus establishment-approved crankery, and it’s not at all clear which is worse.”
Mr. Krugman is right about Rubio – he has based his campaign on pandering to the Republican elites.
But he has nothing on Clinton, who has based her campaign on pandering to Democratic elites and special interest groups.
Only Trump and Sanders are speaking directly to ordinary Americans about the real issues: economic inequality and the waste of blood and treasure in stupid wars.
If it ends up being a contest between the Queen Bee of panderers, Hillary Clinton, and the obnoxious Donald Trump, Trump will get my vote.
Mr. Krugman is right about Rubio – he has based his campaign on pandering to the Republican elites.
But he has nothing on Clinton, who has based her campaign on pandering to Democratic elites and special interest groups.
Only Trump and Sanders are speaking directly to ordinary Americans about the real issues: economic inequality and the waste of blood and treasure in stupid wars.
If it ends up being a contest between the Queen Bee of panderers, Hillary Clinton, and the obnoxious Donald Trump, Trump will get my vote.
5
I guess some people still do't get it about policy. Policy matters and matters a lot. That's why we as a country are in the mess we are in. Tim, did you vote for Chris Christie? did you study about his policies? And as far as pandering, what does that mean? Is it about money or the interest groups? We all are part of interest group but the question is which policies are best for yours? That's the essence of what politics is and has been since Greece ruled the known world. If the American people exercised their political will to have truly public financing of elections, to have campaign finance reform, voted out those who supported Citizens' United, then would be no pandering but that didn't happen. So the question is, why would you vote for the leader of the party of stupid? That is something you alone have to answer. Why would you want Mitt Romney to pay zero taxes? Is that the society you want? Not me, I have to pay the AMT and I will be damned if Romney skates with zero. So I am with Hillary because I want someone who will fight the fight and not make unrealizable dreams their master.
1
Republican orthodoxy has been wrong for at least the last thirty years when David Stockman called out the trickle down economics of the Reagan Administration as a fraud and Trojan horse that it was. Despite the numerous failures of its economic and fiscal policy starting with Reagan and culminating in W's economic meltdown and the tremendous failures of such GOP governors as Sam Brownback of Kansas, they continue this trickle down fiction.
Their “economic” policy was never meant to work but is merely a cynical ploy to bankrupt the government to implement their radical ideology to cut and/or eliminate all social programs, like social security and medicaid. This is despite that so many of their voters rely on these programs.
That is why I laugh when GOP candidates talk of balancing the budget. It is because they do not want to balance the budget and will not do so if elected.
With a $19,000,000,000,000.00 deficit, this country cannot afford any more Trojan horses, especially those that benefit only the one percent at the expense of everyone else.
Their “economic” policy was never meant to work but is merely a cynical ploy to bankrupt the government to implement their radical ideology to cut and/or eliminate all social programs, like social security and medicaid. This is despite that so many of their voters rely on these programs.
That is why I laugh when GOP candidates talk of balancing the budget. It is because they do not want to balance the budget and will not do so if elected.
With a $19,000,000,000,000.00 deficit, this country cannot afford any more Trojan horses, especially those that benefit only the one percent at the expense of everyone else.
18
John, the gross debt (not deficit) which you quote is about 101% of GDP. In 1946 it was 121% of GDP. During the next 27 years we had deficits 21 of those years and increased the debt (in dollars) by 75%. And enjoyed prosperity.
The finances of a huge long lived country that can print the currency its debt is in are vastly different from you personal finances.
The finances of a huge long lived country that can print the currency its debt is in are vastly different from you personal finances.
1
What is the logic that tax cuts don't spur growth but tax hikes do. Please explain. Seems counter intuitive.
3
The government does not hoarde or profit. It spends and stimulates.
8
I will make it simple for you - 1 - taxes determine the government's revenue but also determine whether it is in deficit. If taxes fall and the deficit rises then that also tends to increase interest rates which acts to slow growth as financing costs rise. As interest rates rise, the cost of maintaining the debt rises as well and in turn increases the national debt more. Increasing taxes tells Wall street that the government will be shrinking the deficit and thereby lowering interest rates. That is exactly what happened when Clinton raised taxes in the nineties and then we had an economic boom to the point that the 30 year bond was retired for a brief period. That ended with George Bush of course after he both cut taxes and increased borrowing for the Iraq war and other adventures. One more thing, the reason why we have low inflation now is because people are not making enough money to consume and that comes from globalization effects and the outsourcing of jobs. But who determines when jobs are outsourced, the CEO of a company does. In case you didn't know, CEO's are 98% white and one other thing, they are Republican. You should wonder why people want to vote for people who want to lower taxes on the wealthy and whether they know anything about economics. As they say, follow the money and see who benefits and who doesn't to find the truth. Cutting corporate taxes and taxes for the wealthy have not produced the results they promised and that is a fact. Time for change.
1
Tax cuts like the BUSH TAX AND RECONCILIATION ACTS OF 2001 AND 2003 were followed by seven years of sluggish job creation, obscenely increased wealth of the top 4%, the second worst economic crash in history and the shedding of 700,000 jobs per month last quarter of '08. The middle-class was strongest after World War II when taxes at the top were highest. Tax cuts targeted at the middle-class, as we've had the last sven years did indeed facilitate job growth; but what Rubio plans is more of what Bush did - disasterous. Intuition does not trump historic reality.
More simply - if you give big tax cuts to the wealthy to create jobs, they'll just keep it. They have been proven to be "takers".
More simply - if you give big tax cuts to the wealthy to create jobs, they'll just keep it. They have been proven to be "takers".
3
First-term Marco's refusal to show up for Senate votes, since he's quitting whether he becomes POTUS or not, displays a disconcerting image of a political animal that will go wherever his donor centric economics lead - it fits with his barely getting out of high school with what he's written was a 2.1 GPA, and his Catholic/LDS/Evangelical/Catholic spiritual journey:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/09/3710527/marco-rubio-religio...
It's becoming easier to see why so many refer to Marco as Robin, and reinforces our impression he's really just running to wind up as Florida's governor.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/09/3710527/marco-rubio-religio...
It's becoming easier to see why so many refer to Marco as Robin, and reinforces our impression he's really just running to wind up as Florida's governor.
12
Lots of people were hoping that you would retract the Friday column, because it destroyed your reputation, it was build on innuendo and misdirections, basically a smear of Bernie Sanders.
Jamie Galbraith, a much better economist than you (saw the debt crisis coming, unlike you) basically says that you lost your marbles. Some 4 guys with a terrible track record https://newrepublic.com/article/130157/pious-attacks-bernie-sanderss-fuz... who had worked for Hillary wrote a hit piece devoid of any numbers. And you went with it because you liked the conclusions. But whooops, the economist Hillary unleashed her hit men on is voting for... Hillary. The "left leaning" Wallstreeters Hillary used don't look all that smart now.
It is like in the old Soviet joke: "I heard that Vanya has bought a car?" "Not Vanya, but Sasha, not a car but a bike, and not has bought but had stolen".
Galbraith is saying that the fiscal multipliers are standard and Friedman's model is standard and dares you to disprove it. You can't.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-fight...
So now what's left: the usual: accuse opponents of being mean. "When you don't have the facts on your side - pound the table".
Jamie Galbraith, a much better economist than you (saw the debt crisis coming, unlike you) basically says that you lost your marbles. Some 4 guys with a terrible track record https://newrepublic.com/article/130157/pious-attacks-bernie-sanderss-fuz... who had worked for Hillary wrote a hit piece devoid of any numbers. And you went with it because you liked the conclusions. But whooops, the economist Hillary unleashed her hit men on is voting for... Hillary. The "left leaning" Wallstreeters Hillary used don't look all that smart now.
It is like in the old Soviet joke: "I heard that Vanya has bought a car?" "Not Vanya, but Sasha, not a car but a bike, and not has bought but had stolen".
Galbraith is saying that the fiscal multipliers are standard and Friedman's model is standard and dares you to disprove it. You can't.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-fight...
So now what's left: the usual: accuse opponents of being mean. "When you don't have the facts on your side - pound the table".
50
It was every bit like Shoeless Joe Jackson taking money to throw the world series. "Say it wasn't so." It has significantly altered my view of Prof. Krugman. In the past he has always been careful to qualify his statements or to drill down and do the math and to avoid any way of taking things or presenting things out of context.
And then he does that. It was a blatent misrepresentation done purely for political reasons to the benefit of the Clintons. This has all the earmarks of a faustian bargain - where he made a deal with the Clintons, only to become, ethically, a Clinton and lose the best part of what he represented. It makes me wonder why he spent a life time of working hard to be careful and cultivate such great integrity, to pursue keynseian economics over neo-liberal economics, to pursue integrity, only to throw it away for the Clintons. Like giving pearls to swine. It does not make much sense. It reminds me of when I had an uncle that had a mid-life crisis - he disappeared for a while. When you lay down with dogs you wake up with fleas.
And then he does that. It was a blatent misrepresentation done purely for political reasons to the benefit of the Clintons. This has all the earmarks of a faustian bargain - where he made a deal with the Clintons, only to become, ethically, a Clinton and lose the best part of what he represented. It makes me wonder why he spent a life time of working hard to be careful and cultivate such great integrity, to pursue keynseian economics over neo-liberal economics, to pursue integrity, only to throw it away for the Clintons. Like giving pearls to swine. It does not make much sense. It reminds me of when I had an uncle that had a mid-life crisis - he disappeared for a while. When you lay down with dogs you wake up with fleas.
20
People like you must either be very rich and egocentric or ignorant as mentioned by Mr Krugman. Tax cuts have brought poorer schools, a third world infrastructure, medical care close to the third world nations, as we get more and more egocentric, i.e. Its the "me, myself and I" attitude and supporting secret wars around the world. The rich get richer by overseas slave labor and stocks investments. They do little to create jobs here.
Western Europe is paying a lot more taxes, more at the level of Teddy Roosevelt's time, and they get a lot more services for it. Rubio would like to bring us closer to where his parents were in Cuba. 5% were able to read during the dictator, our friend prior to Castro. I believe in a more compassionate nation. Iv'e been to Cuba and saw people who at least now have an education, and medical care, despite our ridiculous embargo. Lots of Europeans and South Americans are vacationing there. It's the Powerful Cubans here who want to continue this embargo. I guess if he or for that matter Trump wins, I fear for this country with its ever more growing evangelist and privatization. The poor will get poorer, the middle class will have no security in their old age, schools will only be good for the wealthy, as they were in Cuba in the 1950's. Is this what we want? I hope sanity prevails. I admire Mr Krugman. Mr. Galbraith was out for himself and his investors. Didn't give a damn about the struggling middle class, nor the poor, who had no money to invest.
Western Europe is paying a lot more taxes, more at the level of Teddy Roosevelt's time, and they get a lot more services for it. Rubio would like to bring us closer to where his parents were in Cuba. 5% were able to read during the dictator, our friend prior to Castro. I believe in a more compassionate nation. Iv'e been to Cuba and saw people who at least now have an education, and medical care, despite our ridiculous embargo. Lots of Europeans and South Americans are vacationing there. It's the Powerful Cubans here who want to continue this embargo. I guess if he or for that matter Trump wins, I fear for this country with its ever more growing evangelist and privatization. The poor will get poorer, the middle class will have no security in their old age, schools will only be good for the wealthy, as they were in Cuba in the 1950's. Is this what we want? I hope sanity prevails. I admire Mr Krugman. Mr. Galbraith was out for himself and his investors. Didn't give a damn about the struggling middle class, nor the poor, who had no money to invest.
3
Krugman was warning about a housing bubble in the early 2000s.
3
The choice for president in November could be between Hillary Clinton and someone who contributed much money to the Clintons ($100k to Clinton Foundation and thousands to Hillary's various campaigns), Donald Trump. Some choice!
11
No doubt about it: The GOP is within a few years of going the way of the 8-Track tape. No one I know with a smidgeon of good sense is nostalgic for that medium. I suspect that will be the case after the Republican Party long gone. In fact, to even refer to them as a “party” is the ultimate misnomer. They long ago devolved into an organized criminal enterprise. That rumbling noise you hear in the far off distance is the sound of Dwight D. Eisenhower doing somersaults in his grave.
As Dr. Winston O’Boogie once intoned, “Strange days indeed.”
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
As Dr. Winston O’Boogie once intoned, “Strange days indeed.”
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
10
You think so? I think that the Democratic Party is on the verge of extinction. There is no "bench" at the national level, and in the states. where Republicans have been running roughshod since Obama's election, it's even worse. Look at the age of current representatives. Where are future leaders of the D party? I don't think I can name even one who I see as a potential leader. (outside of Sen Warren, and the age factor will prevent her from assuming a more prominent role).
The current campaign is not going to help things.
The current campaign is not going to help things.
1
1. We need money to conduct commerce.
2. As the economy grows it needs more and more money.
3. Money comes from the federal government via the FED,
4. The way money gets from the federal government to us is by federal spending.
5. The deficit measure the net flow of money from the federal government to people, businesses, and state & local governments.
6. The debt is the net accumulation of this money over time.
7. Too high debt or deficits have never hurt our economy while surpluses for a while have always done so.
The federal government has balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than three years in just six periods since 1776, during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, and 1920-30. The debt was paid down 29%. 100%, 59%, 27%, 57%, and 38% respectively. A depression began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
8. As a percentage of GDP our public debt was about 50% higher in 1946. The period 1946 - 1973 was a period sometimes called the Great Prosperity during which real median household income surged 74%. In fact we INCREASED the debt in dollars by 75% during this period. What happened was as the economy grew, the debt became insignificant.
After WWI, we DECREASED the debt by 38% by 1929. Then what happened?
9. Krugman hates to admit it, but balancing the budget is just as bad in good times as bad times. Keynes got it wrong, or to be precise, half wrong.
2. As the economy grows it needs more and more money.
3. Money comes from the federal government via the FED,
4. The way money gets from the federal government to us is by federal spending.
5. The deficit measure the net flow of money from the federal government to people, businesses, and state & local governments.
6. The debt is the net accumulation of this money over time.
7. Too high debt or deficits have never hurt our economy while surpluses for a while have always done so.
The federal government has balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than three years in just six periods since 1776, during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, and 1920-30. The debt was paid down 29%. 100%, 59%, 27%, 57%, and 38% respectively. A depression began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
8. As a percentage of GDP our public debt was about 50% higher in 1946. The period 1946 - 1973 was a period sometimes called the Great Prosperity during which real median household income surged 74%. In fact we INCREASED the debt in dollars by 75% during this period. What happened was as the economy grew, the debt became insignificant.
After WWI, we DECREASED the debt by 38% by 1929. Then what happened?
9. Krugman hates to admit it, but balancing the budget is just as bad in good times as bad times. Keynes got it wrong, or to be precise, half wrong.
12
I cannot disagree with your analysis of the crankiness of the two most viable GOP candidates. However, we shouldn't ignore the scariest crank of all, Ted Cruz. As long as he stays in the primary game, he allows Trump to stay ahead of Rubio. Thank goodness!
9
Unfortunately, the Grand Oblivion Party is not riding into oblivion after the election. They still have the gerrymandered Congress and the state governments. The GOP will be ornier than ever as it tries to live out one of its worst nightmares, a feisty woman president succeeding a successful black president.
18
All Trump has to do to decimate Rubio, is exactly what Trump did to Bush: tell the populace that "he proposes to eliminate investment income," so that the rich end up paying zero taxes; that he said that "it's not the Fed's job to stimulate the economy," although the law says that it is.
That way Trump can show exactly how ignorant Rubio is.
That way Trump can show exactly how ignorant Rubio is.
7
Unfortunately, Rubio isn't even particularly smart or informed on the issues or even his positions as evidenced by his consistent backtracking whenever it appears he stepped afoul of fringe appeal. But to Republicans frightened of how boring Bush looked and sounded and afraid of just how scary Cruz looks and sounds , telegenic and personable in a Manchurian candidate type of way! . Let's not forget he does speak Spanish though the last immigrants he approved of were his own parents. Seriously , throw Trump in and you see what lies, misinformation, prejudice , racism, money and unbridled greed and thirst for power wrought!
4
Perhaps the great gift of the Trumpeteer is the end of ideology freeing himself and the hide-bound Republicans from the cells of limited thinking and loyal following. The list is long and the muleteers great--Mitch beats his long-eared minions into line on confirmation hearings, climate change. Obamacare, taxes, budgets, and willful violence overseas. None of that has any credence in policy; it is rather adherence to an accepted gospel. McConnell, of course, is merely the hired hand of a long list of well-funded advocacy groups that seek their own purity. We have seen the bankruptcy of that loyalty in Rubio and Cruz, not to mention the empty action list of the Congress.
2
Krugman: "...Mr. Rubio insists that his tax cuts would pay for themselves... Never mind the complete absence of any evidence for this claim..."
Dr. Krugman, you are not paying attention to the benighted modus operandi of much of the Republican Party: ideology trumps evidence. It is all about how things feel and are imagined to be, whether the issue is the economy or foreign policy.
Do you not remember how we were welcomed as liberators in Iraq and how the Bush tax cuts improved on the surplus handed to him by the Clinton administration?
Dr. Krugman, you are not paying attention to the benighted modus operandi of much of the Republican Party: ideology trumps evidence. It is all about how things feel and are imagined to be, whether the issue is the economy or foreign policy.
Do you not remember how we were welcomed as liberators in Iraq and how the Bush tax cuts improved on the surplus handed to him by the Clinton administration?
19
Is this the first Krugman column you've ever read? That 'benighted modus operandi' is all he's written about for years. It's reached the point where I often skim Krugman's columns because he's not saying anything new (and it's not likely he'll be saying anything I would disagree with).
Nowadays Paul, at least in in his twice-weekly NYT columns writes pretty-much as a cheerleader for his side. I can't blame him since it's obvious his opposite numbers in the policy field simply won't listen to him.
There's really not much debate in this country anymore anyway. It's all just shouting matches. You can blame whoever you want - I personally do most of my self-indulgent finger pointing at the hard right.
Nowadays Paul, at least in in his twice-weekly NYT columns writes pretty-much as a cheerleader for his side. I can't blame him since it's obvious his opposite numbers in the policy field simply won't listen to him.
There's really not much debate in this country anymore anyway. It's all just shouting matches. You can blame whoever you want - I personally do most of my self-indulgent finger pointing at the hard right.
2
I'VE BEEN A SAP For Rubio's engaging demeanor, as I was less familiar than I needed to have been to appreciate his policies, which are somewhere to the right of Godzilla the Hun (Take THAT you mean Trumpster!). Somehow deluding the 99% that giving away far more to the 1% is going to herald in another era of wealth and prosperity brought about by trickle down voo doo doesn't feel like raindrops falling on my head. It feels like something filthy. While Rubio's demeanor is far more engaging than those of Cruz or Trump, his ideas are, mildly put, disastrous. Atrocious. Ruinous. You name it. So that means the GOP is a total calamity in its hapless, feckless "hopefuls" for the candidacy. They'd better start talking about the dead GOP elephants in the room. They'll have plenty of political corpses to clean up after their next defeat.
951
Sen. Rubio reads as VERY insincere when he recites his scripted lines and poses to appear pious. No one home there, there are no lights on.He makes GW Bush look clever & smooth in comparison.
4
That about sums it up. So, I am volunteering to drive kids from the local urban community college to vote. Very, very diverse, lots of "non-traditional" students, plenty of millennials. I recommend to all to do something similar. We GOTTA have most people GOING to vote.
2
Establishment approved crankery is not dead in the Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders has great ideas and the support of rank and file Democrats. Yet the party establishment is trying to crush the Sanders campaign. The Democratic Party establishment is as deaf to the cries of its rank and file as the Republican Party.
Nobody can expect a Democratic president (she or he) to easily overcome the opposition of a Republican congress. What the rank and file Democrats want is a President willing to put up one heck of a fight and not just a lobbying offensive. The rank and file hoped for that in President Obama. The rank and file Democrats are still ready to put the "we" in the "yes we can". Just imagine a Democratic equivalent of the Tea Party holding 30 days of demonstrations, one a day in thirty state capitals, on the $15 minimum wage, single payer or any other issue raised by the Sanders campaign. That's what rank and file Democrats want and what the Democratic Party establishment doesn't want to hear.
Nobody can expect a Democratic president (she or he) to easily overcome the opposition of a Republican congress. What the rank and file Democrats want is a President willing to put up one heck of a fight and not just a lobbying offensive. The rank and file hoped for that in President Obama. The rank and file Democrats are still ready to put the "we" in the "yes we can". Just imagine a Democratic equivalent of the Tea Party holding 30 days of demonstrations, one a day in thirty state capitals, on the $15 minimum wage, single payer or any other issue raised by the Sanders campaign. That's what rank and file Democrats want and what the Democratic Party establishment doesn't want to hear.
31
Right.
Corollary - anyone who thinks Hillary would have an easier time getting anything through Congress than Bernie is wrong.
Corollary - anyone who thinks Hillary would have an easier time getting anything through Congress than Bernie is wrong.
2
IT will be a sad day for the average worker and senior, student and middle class if the presidency falls to any of the GOP candidates, and they will be able to appoint a Supreme Court Justice with a conservative, perhaps even more so, than Scalia. People are indeed ignorant of politics or economics Mr. Krugman. I hope Sanity prevails and either HRC or BS will win.
God help us 99% citizens if the other side wins.
God help us 99% citizens if the other side wins.
2
But lobbying is how you fight in a functioning representative democracy. Also deal making, backscratching, favor trading. Even persuasion, if it comes to that. The real problem is that for much of the time the GOP isn't having any of that. And right now at least the likely forecast is that with a lot of luck the Democrats might get control of the Senate (forget the House) but not reach the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. And remember if you don't have those sixty votes the filibuster now has become the minority party veto.
Given that, what do you expect a President Sanders to do? He can't unilaterally break up Big Banks, reverse Supreme Court decisions or change us over to renewable energy. He can't raise taxes on the rich all by himself. The decades of economic damage to the middle class will take decades to repair, and Sanders is only one man.
Of course any Democratic president will face this disadvantage. So what to do? At present I'm afraid the only option is to continue what Obama has done - work the system, offer deals, take a half-step forward, etc. Above all, don't lose any ground. Remember it's not just partisanship that fuels GOP opposition. A lot of Republicans want to undo pretty much everything since FDR's administration and some of them want to include the other Roosevelt administration (you remember Teddy, right? Republican president Theodore Roosevelt?). To be blunt, the stakes are so high nowadays that not losing is a huge victory.
Given that, what do you expect a President Sanders to do? He can't unilaterally break up Big Banks, reverse Supreme Court decisions or change us over to renewable energy. He can't raise taxes on the rich all by himself. The decades of economic damage to the middle class will take decades to repair, and Sanders is only one man.
Of course any Democratic president will face this disadvantage. So what to do? At present I'm afraid the only option is to continue what Obama has done - work the system, offer deals, take a half-step forward, etc. Above all, don't lose any ground. Remember it's not just partisanship that fuels GOP opposition. A lot of Republicans want to undo pretty much everything since FDR's administration and some of them want to include the other Roosevelt administration (you remember Teddy, right? Republican president Theodore Roosevelt?). To be blunt, the stakes are so high nowadays that not losing is a huge victory.
1
Trump is scary and Rubio doesn't show up for work.
If one of them wins...
If one of them wins...
5
Isn't the Ayatollah Cruz the scariest of all?
17
I think PK should hold off on the coronation of HRC. In a principle piece in today's NYT, one finds (if you look hard enough), "A New York Times analysis found that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders are tied in the pledged delegate count, at 51 each." These are the delegates result from the actual votes of people, if that is still important these days. Yes HRC has many others up her sleeves, but as the same article points out: "Mrs. Clinton already has a huge lead over Mr. Sanders in support from superdelegates — elected officials and party elders who each count toward the magic number of 2,383. But superdelegates could switch candidates if Mr. Sanders is the overwhelming choice of regular voters."
More election "corruption," or rigging of the system...? Of course, we hardly want the people to actual choose our leadership via a direct election! In any case, this is the system we have now, and let's see how it will run out... There may be some very big surprises, just as there have already been! Time, and hopefully the American people, will tell!
More election "corruption," or rigging of the system...? Of course, we hardly want the people to actual choose our leadership via a direct election! In any case, this is the system we have now, and let's see how it will run out... There may be some very big surprises, just as there have already been! Time, and hopefully the American people, will tell!
22
I agree with the author. However, self-interest from a northern perspective forces me to admit that your last Republican president's "leadership" made Manhattan real estate realistically affordable to my wife and me for a brief while, well until Obama messed it up, what with the recovery he managed to squeeze out.
But we have faith in America, and are now thinking that yet another Republican president's economic "leadership" will put a nice summer place on Martha's Vineyard, or maybe the Hamptons within reach.
But we have faith in America, and are now thinking that yet another Republican president's economic "leadership" will put a nice summer place on Martha's Vineyard, or maybe the Hamptons within reach.
9
Those are really vexing problems, but certainly all will be much better if you can buy a summer home on the water. Although then you'll have to find a caretaker and a groundskeeper, and good help is so hard to find these days, isn't it?
2
A nice analysis of Rubio. However, in reading this article I felt it fit a bit too snugly with the Clinton trajectory. Clinton trounces Trump in a general, Rubio is harder to beat. Now with Nevada in pocket, we can turn our critique from Sanders to the republicans.
How about an analysis of Clinton's economic plans and industrial policy? What about as of a June 2015 report half of all public school kids live in poverty?
Has Hilary given any specifics about this issue at all?
Look, I want to win in 2016 as well, but I fear Hilary will start running for 2020 on day one and we democrats will forgive all sorts of malfeasance and weak compromises on addressing core progressive issues in order to keep her 're-electable'. Not to mention who she will have to bomb to prove she's not weak.
Where's your analysis and critique of her views? Does it continue the Reagan inspired slide into third world ineqaulity or not? Is she four more years of Obama's policies? Does Wall St. continue to get a pass?
Btw, most people don't know much about Sanders, but a significant and mobilized group of people HATE HRC and WJC , and republican primaries are having huge turnouts. I wouldn't be so surprised that Trump doesn't beat Hillary due to lack of democratic turnout and Trump saying just enough to get the enough angry white male votes to cancel out any mobilizing done on behalf of the groups Trump villifies.
How about an analysis of Clinton's economic plans and industrial policy? What about as of a June 2015 report half of all public school kids live in poverty?
Has Hilary given any specifics about this issue at all?
Look, I want to win in 2016 as well, but I fear Hilary will start running for 2020 on day one and we democrats will forgive all sorts of malfeasance and weak compromises on addressing core progressive issues in order to keep her 're-electable'. Not to mention who she will have to bomb to prove she's not weak.
Where's your analysis and critique of her views? Does it continue the Reagan inspired slide into third world ineqaulity or not? Is she four more years of Obama's policies? Does Wall St. continue to get a pass?
Btw, most people don't know much about Sanders, but a significant and mobilized group of people HATE HRC and WJC , and republican primaries are having huge turnouts. I wouldn't be so surprised that Trump doesn't beat Hillary due to lack of democratic turnout and Trump saying just enough to get the enough angry white male votes to cancel out any mobilizing done on behalf of the groups Trump villifies.
18
Brendan,
"It's the Supreme Court, stupid."
I don't care what Hillary's detailed economic policies are. The current Court has 4 Justices who would vote against Citizens United. They were appointed by
"evil triangulator Clinton" and
"evil compromiser Obama".
Sorry, but Hillary is the best bet to beat any Republican ticket. Imagine Rubio with Kasich as VP running against Bernie. It's Bush/Cheney all over again, and although Gore did actually win, let's not forget the factors that resulted in the final outcome:
A "compassionate conservative" you would "like to have a beer with" against a policy wonk that people didn't relate to, with the addition of righteous truth-telling Ralph syphoning off some votes. And then there's Barack Obama, a personable young man with a charming family and an ethnic identity, running against a grumpy, opinionated, Old, white guy with unrealistic expectations.
Hillary is a much more attractive candidate in the general election, and please don't try to tell me that Republican women will not cross over for her, as well as Republican men concerned with foreign policy.
Let's take back the governorships and the Senate and House, and then maybe some of Bernie's ideas can actually be realized. (And if you like, run a young "progressive" challenger against Hillary in 2020.)
"It's the Supreme Court, stupid."
I don't care what Hillary's detailed economic policies are. The current Court has 4 Justices who would vote against Citizens United. They were appointed by
"evil triangulator Clinton" and
"evil compromiser Obama".
Sorry, but Hillary is the best bet to beat any Republican ticket. Imagine Rubio with Kasich as VP running against Bernie. It's Bush/Cheney all over again, and although Gore did actually win, let's not forget the factors that resulted in the final outcome:
A "compassionate conservative" you would "like to have a beer with" against a policy wonk that people didn't relate to, with the addition of righteous truth-telling Ralph syphoning off some votes. And then there's Barack Obama, a personable young man with a charming family and an ethnic identity, running against a grumpy, opinionated, Old, white guy with unrealistic expectations.
Hillary is a much more attractive candidate in the general election, and please don't try to tell me that Republican women will not cross over for her, as well as Republican men concerned with foreign policy.
Let's take back the governorships and the Senate and House, and then maybe some of Bernie's ideas can actually be realized. (And if you like, run a young "progressive" challenger against Hillary in 2020.)
5
The problem is the electorate in states like mine (Arkansas), who are totally oblivious to the nuances of these choices. What information they have is derived from the right wing Propaganda Organs. No other data is acceptable, and their ignorance is superior to my book learning, the organs told them so.
Never mind my on the ground experience, I'm an obvious liberal and could not possibly know what I am talking about.
So the Party of Crazy has a lock on the house, and enough Senate votes to prevent any real action. Our state legislative races are about who can be more conservative, based on pushing more poor people out in the streets to die by repealing the Medicaid Expansion. Hey, the state can't afford it, Tax cuts are SO MUCH more important.
The easy vote is the candidate promising to make America Great Again, ignoring the reality of the causes of many of our problems.
Never mind my on the ground experience, I'm an obvious liberal and could not possibly know what I am talking about.
So the Party of Crazy has a lock on the house, and enough Senate votes to prevent any real action. Our state legislative races are about who can be more conservative, based on pushing more poor people out in the streets to die by repealing the Medicaid Expansion. Hey, the state can't afford it, Tax cuts are SO MUCH more important.
The easy vote is the candidate promising to make America Great Again, ignoring the reality of the causes of many of our problems.
1034
To those of us who have spent our lives in "white collar jobs" Donald Trump's brand of bluster is very familiar. We watch our corporate CEOs round up the usual suspects and make these types of promises every year. Then at the end of the year we see him/her slink off to their island get away with multi-million dollar bonuses while a 5% raise for the rank and file is beyond their reach because, woe-is-them, we didn't meet our targets for whatever reason.
Most people in this country don't have that experience. They are, as we say, sipping the company koolaid. They believe the nonsense Donald Trump is shoveling because they haven't been victim to it year after year, decade after decade.
How do we break that?
I have no idea.
Most people in this country don't have that experience. They are, as we say, sipping the company koolaid. They believe the nonsense Donald Trump is shoveling because they haven't been victim to it year after year, decade after decade.
How do we break that?
I have no idea.
7
With all the faults this country might possess, it is still a great country and having a man who is crude, rude, offensive, loud and in love with himself is not going to make this country greater.
The man who answers important questions with "I can do it - I am successful, I know the right people - I have my people working on it right now - I know how to close a deal - I am rich so that means I can preside".
Not one single answer explaining exactly what his plan is other than to have Mexico pay for a bridge to keep them out of America - I am sure they are anxious to do that? Will he persuade them by using his filthy insulting language or forcing them into bankruptcy? Yes, that will make America great again when it was never 'not great'.
The man who answers important questions with "I can do it - I am successful, I know the right people - I have my people working on it right now - I know how to close a deal - I am rich so that means I can preside".
Not one single answer explaining exactly what his plan is other than to have Mexico pay for a bridge to keep them out of America - I am sure they are anxious to do that? Will he persuade them by using his filthy insulting language or forcing them into bankruptcy? Yes, that will make America great again when it was never 'not great'.
4
The modern Republican Party, as it currently defines itself in any and all of its putative candidates, is a fraud. If Trump becomes the party's candidate, perhaps it will implode and force the creation of another Republican party that has something more than greed and prejudice as its motivating goals!
5
Cimstances often provide us with the right President for the right time and it looks like that's what's happening with the 2016 Presidential election.
Voters are angry and disillusioned with politics as usual, both Conservatives and Liberals. This discontent, frustration and anger is showing to completely different results.
The Republicans are on their way to nominating a candidate of hate who has no real plans to fix anything.
The Democrats are on their way to nominating a centrist candidate who has been pushed more left and has actual policies and plans to put her words into action and rather than push hate and despair, she is pushing a shared vision.
When it comes to vote in November, hate will not win, thankfully!
Voters are angry and disillusioned with politics as usual, both Conservatives and Liberals. This discontent, frustration and anger is showing to completely different results.
The Republicans are on their way to nominating a candidate of hate who has no real plans to fix anything.
The Democrats are on their way to nominating a centrist candidate who has been pushed more left and has actual policies and plans to put her words into action and rather than push hate and despair, she is pushing a shared vision.
When it comes to vote in November, hate will not win, thankfully!
10
I find Mr. Krugman's arguments here compelling, except for one point. It seems that that the Republican elite are not ignorant of, but rather indifferent to, the economic consequences of their beloved policies. As long as they get to keep a larger part of their income, they don't care how the rest plays out.
176
Yep. It's deja vu all over again: After us the deluge. Let them eat cake. If we kill the goose that lays the golden eggs... we can get all the gold now!
Often media figures will say "Republicans believe this, Republicans believe that." Sincerely pronounced myths don't reflect "belief." Media parrots who say so have no clue what the Rs believe, which boils down to "More for me! Now! Right now!" The rest is just salesmanship. "We're good! We're great! We're the greatest! Give us the keys to the vaults! That way, you'll be a winner too! You're gonna love us!"
Every once in a while we get tired of the messy Democrats, and vote in the Republicans. Like Bush after Clinton. Then after a couple of terms of Republicans, we remember why we usually voted Democrat. At least the Ds will raise the minimum wage once in a while, give a little support to victimized people of color and immigrants and others on the short end of the stick, and make some investments in America. Not the Rs.
This election especially is a national IQ test.
Often media figures will say "Republicans believe this, Republicans believe that." Sincerely pronounced myths don't reflect "belief." Media parrots who say so have no clue what the Rs believe, which boils down to "More for me! Now! Right now!" The rest is just salesmanship. "We're good! We're great! We're the greatest! Give us the keys to the vaults! That way, you'll be a winner too! You're gonna love us!"
Every once in a while we get tired of the messy Democrats, and vote in the Republicans. Like Bush after Clinton. Then after a couple of terms of Republicans, we remember why we usually voted Democrat. At least the Ds will raise the minimum wage once in a while, give a little support to victimized people of color and immigrants and others on the short end of the stick, and make some investments in America. Not the Rs.
This election especially is a national IQ test.
6
Despite his apparent disdain for Sanders, Krugman makes a good case for his appeal to average voters who are not quite as ignorant and gullible as most candidates treat them. Bernie, like Trump, appeals to voters of either party as well as independents, who are angry and fed up with the status quo. But unlike Trump, he's polite, down to earth, and his analyses make sense. Whether or not he can win the nomination is still an open question. I think both he and Clinton have liabilities concerning their electability, but either one would make a better President than either of the others.
20
I don't get this analysis: Hillary Clinton--who just barely squeaked by Sanders in Iowa thanks to a handful of voters and six coin tosses, who was trounced in New Hampshire and then won by only 5 percent in Nevada--has demonstrated that she has staying power and is now the overwhelming favorite? What?
And on the Republican side, you have already narrowed things down to just Trump and Rubio, leaving out the admittedly despicable Senator Cruz, who won Iowa, came in 3rd in New Hampshire (Rubio was 5th), and trailed Rubio by only 0.2% in South Carolina.
Is it just me, or does anyone else have the feeling that the New York Times and its editorial and journalistic staff are doing their utmost to bend the events of this campaign in their desired direction--well before the majority of voters have had a chance to have any say in things--and are even actively trying to discourage voters from voting for certain candidates, such as Sanders?
I find the coverage of this primary season very troubling, and am beginning to doubt the integrity of the New York Times.
And on the Republican side, you have already narrowed things down to just Trump and Rubio, leaving out the admittedly despicable Senator Cruz, who won Iowa, came in 3rd in New Hampshire (Rubio was 5th), and trailed Rubio by only 0.2% in South Carolina.
Is it just me, or does anyone else have the feeling that the New York Times and its editorial and journalistic staff are doing their utmost to bend the events of this campaign in their desired direction--well before the majority of voters have had a chance to have any say in things--and are even actively trying to discourage voters from voting for certain candidates, such as Sanders?
I find the coverage of this primary season very troubling, and am beginning to doubt the integrity of the New York Times.
41
AMEN, and yes, I realize this is the NYT and comments are supposed to be reasoned arguments with facts backing up said arguments. However, your comment so completely nailed what I have been feeling since the Trump candidacy began, well, I just have to say thank you for your comment. And AMEN.
Iowa and NH had far less minority voters than the Democratic primary in general. Nevada is more representative of the demographics of national Democratic primary voters.
3
Read Sam Wang (Princeton electoral consortium), 538, and predictwise for mathematical models of the primary. You can then stop doubting the integrity of the NYTs
3
The rigidity of the Republican doctrine on taxes resembles an alternative version of the movie, "Groundhog Day." In that film, the Bill Murray character experiences a time loop in which he repeats the title 24-hour period until he corrects the personal problems that had landed him in limbo.
In the darker alternative version, the GOP begins every presidential election cycle with a demand for lower taxes. The tax policy of the previous four years has no effect on this mantra. Nor do the economic trends of that period alter the robotic claim that lower taxes will cure all difficulties. A smaller tax bite will perpetuate an economic boom or cure a recession.
The darker tone of this version stems from the fact that GOP, unlike Murray, never learns from its mistakes. Previous tax cuts may have caused inflation or boosted the deficit, without any positive impact on real GDP, but such practical consequences do not stimulate a revision of party doctrine. In this remake of the original film, unfortunately, the entire country suffers from the inability or unwillingness of the Republicans to learn from experience.
Is there a script doctor in the house?
In the darker alternative version, the GOP begins every presidential election cycle with a demand for lower taxes. The tax policy of the previous four years has no effect on this mantra. Nor do the economic trends of that period alter the robotic claim that lower taxes will cure all difficulties. A smaller tax bite will perpetuate an economic boom or cure a recession.
The darker tone of this version stems from the fact that GOP, unlike Murray, never learns from its mistakes. Previous tax cuts may have caused inflation or boosted the deficit, without any positive impact on real GDP, but such practical consequences do not stimulate a revision of party doctrine. In this remake of the original film, unfortunately, the entire country suffers from the inability or unwillingness of the Republicans to learn from experience.
Is there a script doctor in the house?
729
Reflecting on who owns the media reveals the answer to your question. The tippy-top owners of dominant TV and print media are precisely those who wish to retain their income and thus power at all costs, no matter the depression and physical injury they cause to all manner of less powerful people, at home and throughout the world. The pope has called this a dominant evil in our world, and in the matter, I can't fault him.
6
@James Lee:
Don't call a script doctor. Call a psychiatrist, because these people are quite literally out of whatever is currently passing for their collective mind.
Don't call a script doctor. Call a psychiatrist, because these people are quite literally out of whatever is currently passing for their collective mind.
5
My only difficulty with your well informed analysis is that Supply Side economics was never meant to be a "policy" aimed at stimulating the economy, for the benefit of all. It is in fact merely a strategy to shift more money and power to a tiny portion of the populace. They are well aware that it doesn't work from the standpoint of the greater good. As far as they're concerned "Let them eat cake").
3
This message is one that just isn't getting enough air play! Thanks for reminding us. And don't stop now.
7
When Trump talks about making America great again, that’s a euphemism for making sure he gets the spoils first. I can see it now. Stay at Trump’s WH, drive on Trump highways, fly on Trump airlines and come and visit Trump’s islands where everything will be laced in gold. He’s offered no specifics except that he going to build a beautiful wall that Mexico will pay for. Everything else is “trust me” I know what I’m doing.
Rubio, on the other hand wants to fight every war to prove America isn’t a pushover. Money – no problem, deficits - who’s counting, waste, fraud and abuse – not my problem. He’s going to take his marching orders from the Koch Brothers and other wealthy donors. In a year or two, we will be living in a theocratic state.
The mere fact that these cranks have gotten this far in 2016 is a sad indictment our of media and the mental state of our populous. With so many problems plaguing this nation, none of these candidates have the wherewithal or temperament to see past their ideological turpitude.
They offer no real solutions to our immediate crises which is a real testament to how screwed up their priorities are. Their lack of comprehension/ sound bites/ tunnel vision on difficult matters (Climate Change, crumbling infrastructure, stagnating/low wage jobs), fealty to the GOP platform and belief systems not based on facts should be a wake-up call to all Americans that this charade has to end, otherwise there won’t be much of a tomorrow for our nation…
Rubio, on the other hand wants to fight every war to prove America isn’t a pushover. Money – no problem, deficits - who’s counting, waste, fraud and abuse – not my problem. He’s going to take his marching orders from the Koch Brothers and other wealthy donors. In a year or two, we will be living in a theocratic state.
The mere fact that these cranks have gotten this far in 2016 is a sad indictment our of media and the mental state of our populous. With so many problems plaguing this nation, none of these candidates have the wherewithal or temperament to see past their ideological turpitude.
They offer no real solutions to our immediate crises which is a real testament to how screwed up their priorities are. Their lack of comprehension/ sound bites/ tunnel vision on difficult matters (Climate Change, crumbling infrastructure, stagnating/low wage jobs), fealty to the GOP platform and belief systems not based on facts should be a wake-up call to all Americans that this charade has to end, otherwise there won’t be much of a tomorrow for our nation…
12
There is no longer, of course, any such thing as a Republican "moderate"; the species went extinct two decades ago. Marco Rubio, the guy unable to manage his own finances without the "assistance" of a Miami auto-dealership billionaire, appears moderate only in comparison to a trust-baby bully who inherited hundreds of millions, never had to work a day in his life, and still had to declare bankruptcy three or four times. One must, however, give Rubio some credit for not wandering around insulting tens of millions, actually billions, of people around the world. Also in his favor, the UK, so far at least, is not passing laws keeping Marco Rubio from entering their country. But Marco is a lot younger than Trump, just give him time. He is certainly every bit as much of a disaster-in-waiting, both to world peace and world financial stability, along with the economic well-being of 300 million Americans. Advantage Hillary.
18
Short and sweet, I would take the crank with the weird hair over the fluff boy for the car dealer. Trump is a true demigod, but at least he has gotten his play dough from his family and what he could cheat the taxpayers out of through the tax and bankruptcy code. Rubio is a life time grifter living off the largesse and charity of a rich donor. Door number one seems the lesser of two very evils.
11
America has stopped being exceptional and settled for standing on it's laurels for quite some time now. That is manifesting itself in the current republican party. We/they have no confidence, no urge to push forward. Have we ever had a more backwards thinking group as the conservative half of our political psyche in our history?
20
And sadly, the DNC and corporate media's favorite candidate is campaigning on maintaining the status quo. What a deal for the American people.
1
The problem is the we are still stuck in a supply side era, thank Reagan where 90% of the gains from growth goes to the 1% & the middle class continues to shrink.
While the GOP Cranks represent Supply-Side on steroids, which is what gave us the 08 Bush Crash Hillary represents more of the same.
What we need is return to demand side economics that FDR gave us with.
More of the same is not sustainable. Sanders/Trump are a clear signal people won't endure the status quo indefinitely. I would not expect the equally tone deaf GOP & Hillary to be hip to that. Hillary will say & promise anything that Sanders does but expect her to throw her progressive promises under the bus quicker than you can say "I'm not influenced by people giving me millions of dollars" (I suspect she can't help herself it's crack cocaine to her). The Presidency is primarily about decision making & I've yet to see a list of good decisions made by Hillary (Bernie has been on the right side of history since the 60s). All this sugests she'll be a horrible President.
If not Bernie (right now Hillary only holds a 4% lead 10% of what she had) the best chance for a return to demand side economics is Trump. He is not tone deaf to populism but to the establishment & he is a nationalist. In the 30s it was nationalist in Japan who first implement demand side policies but for bad reasons.
Between the Cranks & Hillary the 99% have no reason to show up on election day. Trump vs Hillary guarantees a Trump President.
While the GOP Cranks represent Supply-Side on steroids, which is what gave us the 08 Bush Crash Hillary represents more of the same.
What we need is return to demand side economics that FDR gave us with.
More of the same is not sustainable. Sanders/Trump are a clear signal people won't endure the status quo indefinitely. I would not expect the equally tone deaf GOP & Hillary to be hip to that. Hillary will say & promise anything that Sanders does but expect her to throw her progressive promises under the bus quicker than you can say "I'm not influenced by people giving me millions of dollars" (I suspect she can't help herself it's crack cocaine to her). The Presidency is primarily about decision making & I've yet to see a list of good decisions made by Hillary (Bernie has been on the right side of history since the 60s). All this sugests she'll be a horrible President.
If not Bernie (right now Hillary only holds a 4% lead 10% of what she had) the best chance for a return to demand side economics is Trump. He is not tone deaf to populism but to the establishment & he is a nationalist. In the 30s it was nationalist in Japan who first implement demand side policies but for bad reasons.
Between the Cranks & Hillary the 99% have no reason to show up on election day. Trump vs Hillary guarantees a Trump President.
27
If Hillary is nominated, her only chance is if one of the GOP cranks runs against her. At that point she can cast them all as neo-BushJrs and remind people of the Bush Crash of 08. That is all she would need to do to win - though she would sound like a single issue candidate.
Trump cannot be cast in that vein. Not since he blamed Bush for 9/11. That stunt will have, among other things, successfully immunized him from the Bush legacy and maybe GOP legacy all together. In a sense, Trump is the only person who can lead the GOP out of their ultimate demise, perhaps only temporarily - because otherwise the GOP offers absolutely nothing to anyone outside the 1 %.
Trump cannot be cast in that vein. Not since he blamed Bush for 9/11. That stunt will have, among other things, successfully immunized him from the Bush legacy and maybe GOP legacy all together. In a sense, Trump is the only person who can lead the GOP out of their ultimate demise, perhaps only temporarily - because otherwise the GOP offers absolutely nothing to anyone outside the 1 %.
13
Which one is not a crank?
1
It's interesting that I see more support for Trump in the NYT comments than in the Wall Street Journal's. I mentioned this in the WSJ comments and people replied, yes, of course you would, we feel he is very liberal, almost a democrat, words to that effect, but not as polite about Trump.
3
The GOP says their fight is over ideas, but their battle has always been over power: they seek to rule, not govern. They want to be masters not servants. Not one single position that they have shows a willingness to compromise or find common ground or exhibit common sense--in eight years!
Hidden in the electoral power plays is an ugliness that attacks minorities, women, and the poor. They have accused the power of not paying taxes! Their official canon says minorities are either eager to live off handouts (blacks) or steal jobs (brown). They are willing to break up families, separating husbands from wives, mothers/fathers from children, offerinf no relief except getting in the back of an imaginary line which offers no priority for families divided. They demand women relinquish control of their bodies to government which in turn denies the liberty of their person. Even now scattered cases exist where women have been jailed for having abortions.
Many voters have become numb to their rage. Many are scared by their projected fears of terrorists on every Main Street. Many have loss grip on the reality of our international standing, where the greatest coalition builder in our history is called "weak" as he inspires democracy over hegemony and power. Too many take comfort in war.
The cultural scares deflect from the naked grab of wealth. Social security is solvent and represents the world's 5th largest GDP. Yet we are told $15 an hour will cause the country to collapse!
Hidden in the electoral power plays is an ugliness that attacks minorities, women, and the poor. They have accused the power of not paying taxes! Their official canon says minorities are either eager to live off handouts (blacks) or steal jobs (brown). They are willing to break up families, separating husbands from wives, mothers/fathers from children, offerinf no relief except getting in the back of an imaginary line which offers no priority for families divided. They demand women relinquish control of their bodies to government which in turn denies the liberty of their person. Even now scattered cases exist where women have been jailed for having abortions.
Many voters have become numb to their rage. Many are scared by their projected fears of terrorists on every Main Street. Many have loss grip on the reality of our international standing, where the greatest coalition builder in our history is called "weak" as he inspires democracy over hegemony and power. Too many take comfort in war.
The cultural scares deflect from the naked grab of wealth. Social security is solvent and represents the world's 5th largest GDP. Yet we are told $15 an hour will cause the country to collapse!
950
One Dem candidate tells Americans they can have their self-respect and succeed while the other tells them to want less for themselves and their kids and hope their state will outdo the Feds. Meanwhile, the peculiarly coiffed candidate tells America he'll turn over trade negotiations to the nation's most famous corporate raider...
These are scary times!
---
Trump, Clinton & Sanders in their own words: http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-22B
These are scary times!
---
Trump, Clinton & Sanders in their own words: http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-22B
16
Excellent commentary. Thank you!
4
Excellent description of many of the Republicans. There are others - the Republican poor voters that vote against their own interest because of campaign propaganda machines paid by the people who want to perpetuate this situation and even tilt more the playing field.
4
The exhausting morning comment chorus: Gentle friends, will you stop the contortions, the shameless illogics, and understand what every election teaches?
The sensible, anxious, and stoic American populace votes either for a change of direction or a steady hand. And our trajectory as a body is not so bad, despite the endless inflammatory language.
Trump represents only the disaffected middle-American minority. Rubio is too young. Cruz is too slick, and Kasich is too late, I think.
Sanders is too radical. Hillary wins the vote of a slightly-right middle. And good.
The sensible, anxious, and stoic American populace votes either for a change of direction or a steady hand. And our trajectory as a body is not so bad, despite the endless inflammatory language.
Trump represents only the disaffected middle-American minority. Rubio is too young. Cruz is too slick, and Kasich is too late, I think.
Sanders is too radical. Hillary wins the vote of a slightly-right middle. And good.
186
Rubio is old enough to be crazy while Cruz is slickly evil. Hillary is perfectly human with warts and all. I'll take that.
10
Not against Trump, she doesn't. Check the polls. People HATE HRC and WJC.
9
Yeah. On the Republican side: all the candidates have policies that will hurt a lot of people. On the Democratic side: two candidates, one with a lot of negatives and one candidate who is nearly ideal but can't win. Hilary wins my support by default. Sigh.
5
Let me see if I got this right. ...
So you sort of prefer Donald to Marco (?). And you definitely prefer Hillary to Bernie (??). Just as you far preferred John Edwards to both Hillary and Barack eight years ago (???).
Why should any of this matter?
You are an award winning trade economist. I suspect your readers would prefer you to opine on what you know most.
So you sort of prefer Donald to Marco (?). And you definitely prefer Hillary to Bernie (??). Just as you far preferred John Edwards to both Hillary and Barack eight years ago (???).
Why should any of this matter?
You are an award winning trade economist. I suspect your readers would prefer you to opine on what you know most.
16
@Nick R. Right. He just did. Did you read the article?
4
"I suspect your readers would prefer you to opine on what you know most."
He just did!
He just did!
7
You are reading YOUR thoughts into the article. Professor Krugman suggested no such things.
5
As Moira, the grifter played in the 1981 movie of the same name by Anette Bening, puts it when discussing the aspects of the long con, "They made money when everyone else was making money. They thought that made them smart." The electorate, at least those of us who are not making 7 to 10 digits' income per annum, are the marks in each election. Because the government of the USA clearly belongs to the behemoth corporations that own these candidates. Billary should be campaigning with a Goldman Sachs logo on her forehead, and as for the Republicans...Trump is a wild card but only because he is running on his own steam as a plutocrat wannabe president. Whatever the outcome in November we the little people will see the inexorable slide toward third world status that the country is already steadily on...
46
>
It all boils down to America being a country full of not very bright, frightened, mean and selfish people. For proof just take a look around when you're out in the public. This is not improving either.
No matter which one takes the GOP nomination, these people will rally around that pick and come out guns ablaze'n at Hillary.
All the GOP old timers and current Trump bashers will support him if need be. They'll rationalize it away by voting to keep Hillary out.
It will be a very close election no matter who wins the GOP nomination, and Hillary is potentially beatable by any of these jokers. She must hold the blue wall. This October there will be a surprise, my guess is some kind of terrorism charade to shave a few % pts off.
Laugh at the GOP at your own peril.
If the GOP takes the WH, it is game over for the Dems. And the only thing worse than that will be listening to the silly optimistic liberal pundits carry on about how demographics will doom the GOP and turn TX blue.
It all boils down to America being a country full of not very bright, frightened, mean and selfish people. For proof just take a look around when you're out in the public. This is not improving either.
No matter which one takes the GOP nomination, these people will rally around that pick and come out guns ablaze'n at Hillary.
All the GOP old timers and current Trump bashers will support him if need be. They'll rationalize it away by voting to keep Hillary out.
It will be a very close election no matter who wins the GOP nomination, and Hillary is potentially beatable by any of these jokers. She must hold the blue wall. This October there will be a surprise, my guess is some kind of terrorism charade to shave a few % pts off.
Laugh at the GOP at your own peril.
If the GOP takes the WH, it is game over for the Dems. And the only thing worse than that will be listening to the silly optimistic liberal pundits carry on about how demographics will doom the GOP and turn TX blue.
164
So with all the allusions to violence and guns, what does "game over" actually mean.
1
The oddity is that the Hillary firewall is in southern states - the justification of her nomination are the states that she likely will not win. To win the presidency the Democratic candidate has to win the big purple states: Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. This makes Hillary suspect. It depends upon the candidate she is up against but Kassich walks off with Ohio and maybe Pennsylvania and Rubio Florida.
6
Uhh, let's see now... all power in GOP hands? Does not bear thinking about, does it?
3
Krugman is right again here: Rubio is just a softer, gentler radical anarchist who wants to choke government off from future revenues.
He comes (his own language) in "21st Century" wolf's garb. Spanish speaking, hyphenated....just the sort of new minority mascot Karl Rove and Grover Norquist envision cheerleading their parade. Here in SC last weekend, they had a full complement of these Frankensteins on display....Nikki Haley, Tim Scott and Marco himself. All apparent evidence that the GOP was NOT the party of misogyny, racism, and xenophobia here to do heavy policy lifting for the wealthiest American political donor class. The Holy Grail for them is Social Security and Medicare....if they can cut government revenue sources enough that gets them there through the back door.
It seems that off-budget, trillion dollar overseas wars have already worn out their welcome. At least as far as the American public is concerned. Marco will get his cue cards updated soon, I'm sure.
Because if you press the right button on Mr. Rubio, he always repeats the correct right wing answer. He's just kindler and gentler about it.
He comes (his own language) in "21st Century" wolf's garb. Spanish speaking, hyphenated....just the sort of new minority mascot Karl Rove and Grover Norquist envision cheerleading their parade. Here in SC last weekend, they had a full complement of these Frankensteins on display....Nikki Haley, Tim Scott and Marco himself. All apparent evidence that the GOP was NOT the party of misogyny, racism, and xenophobia here to do heavy policy lifting for the wealthiest American political donor class. The Holy Grail for them is Social Security and Medicare....if they can cut government revenue sources enough that gets them there through the back door.
It seems that off-budget, trillion dollar overseas wars have already worn out their welcome. At least as far as the American public is concerned. Marco will get his cue cards updated soon, I'm sure.
Because if you press the right button on Mr. Rubio, he always repeats the correct right wing answer. He's just kindler and gentler about it.
327
Get ready. If Rubio wins, he will choose our governor for Vice President as pay back for her endorsement. Haley's endorsement almost certainly helped him edge out Cruz. Nikki Haley: Bride of Frankenstein?
7
Sometimes he blows the repeat button. He doesn't appear to be very bright. But does anyone pay attention?
1
OK, Prof. Krugman. Glad that you're sticking to "economics." Now, how about PEIS?
Pres. Clinton: Job growth thru (a) end of Cold War "peace dividend" expansion into now-longer-closed markets; (b) unfathomable technological/productivity advancements; and (c) shady accounting (see, Enron, Worldcom).
Pres. Obama: Job growth thru "Nowhere to Go but Up."
I agree: it's Voodoo Economics all over again. But stick to economics, not politics, please & thank you.
Pres. Clinton: Job growth thru (a) end of Cold War "peace dividend" expansion into now-longer-closed markets; (b) unfathomable technological/productivity advancements; and (c) shady accounting (see, Enron, Worldcom).
Pres. Obama: Job growth thru "Nowhere to Go but Up."
I agree: it's Voodoo Economics all over again. But stick to economics, not politics, please & thank you.
3
What does Persistent Elementary Isolated Sclerosis have to do with economics?
4
Please do not insult other cultures and religions. Just to remind you, term voodoo economics, "A slanderous term used by George H. W. Bush in reference to President Ronald Reagan's economic policies, which came to be known as "Reaganomics".
George W Bush used the term out of ignorance and this Nobel prize winning economist repeated the term in double ignorance, first to make fun of George W., then to insult the origins of this religion embraced by an entire culture.
"Voodoo is a religion that originates in Africa. In the Americas and the Caribbean, it is thought to be a combination of various African, Catholic and Native American traditions. It is practiced around the world but there is no accurate count of how many people are Voodooists.
Voodoo has no scripture or world authority. It is community-centered and supports individual experience, empowerment and responsibility.
Voodoo is different in different parts of the world, and varies from community to community. This is mostly about Voodoo in New Orleans and Haiti.
Voodoo embraces and encompasses the entirety of human experience. It is practiced by people who are imperfect and may use religion for their own purposes."
George W Bush used the term out of ignorance and this Nobel prize winning economist repeated the term in double ignorance, first to make fun of George W., then to insult the origins of this religion embraced by an entire culture.
"Voodoo is a religion that originates in Africa. In the Americas and the Caribbean, it is thought to be a combination of various African, Catholic and Native American traditions. It is practiced around the world but there is no accurate count of how many people are Voodooists.
Voodoo has no scripture or world authority. It is community-centered and supports individual experience, empowerment and responsibility.
Voodoo is different in different parts of the world, and varies from community to community. This is mostly about Voodoo in New Orleans and Haiti.
Voodoo embraces and encompasses the entirety of human experience. It is practiced by people who are imperfect and may use religion for their own purposes."
3
Well, there is the notion of 'institutional sclerosis' in the social science literature. I'm not sure how persistent, elementary, or isolated it is.
In his brilliant book Idiot America, Charles Pierce chronicles the
GOP's "war on expertise." Trump is the apotheosis of "crank rule"
The GOP has reaped what it has sown.
Word
GOP's "war on expertise." Trump is the apotheosis of "crank rule"
The GOP has reaped what it has sown.
Word
80
Krugman's assertions are no surprise to me. For the past two generations, the Republican Party has undermined the very idea of government and of fact-based governance. Trump has merely taken them a step further by undertaking attacks against honesty itself. (His record of denying having made statements that are clearly recorded is just one aspect of that attack.)
The Republic Party is the Cheshire Cat of American politics, except it fades to a sneer, not a smile.
The Republic Party is the Cheshire Cat of American politics, except it fades to a sneer, not a smile.
74
Neither Republican crankery nor their orthodoxy is the greater threat.
If you haven't realized by now, it is blind populism towards all of *US* (as in *us*), who can't tell the difference between the numbers that work and the emotions that we crave.
If you and reliable economic wonkery is to be believed, then Mr. Sanders is the other extreme of Republican voodoo economics. But the fact that they are all contending for the votes of sensible people - many of whom read your column and accuse you of calumny - tells us that the real numbers may not matter.
The worst of this may be that this election may have very little to do with sense - which many of us can't tell - and feeling, which all of us can.
I'm afraid you will end up on the losing side if you don't make the voter feel, and if you just tell us to calculate. None of us can do that any more.
So convert your calculations into tales, Professor. Because come November, apart from getting the vote out, it would be your inability to get them to feel what is right and what they need, that would lose you the election.
And don't say you weren't told.
Because we all want low taxes, high incomes, free healthcare, free education, jail for banksters and racist police, wars that end themselves, immigration that happens elsewhere, your jobs back from everywhere else in the world, etc., etc.
But none of us know what is possible and what is not, unless you say it in a way I feel and want.
If you haven't realized by now, it is blind populism towards all of *US* (as in *us*), who can't tell the difference between the numbers that work and the emotions that we crave.
If you and reliable economic wonkery is to be believed, then Mr. Sanders is the other extreme of Republican voodoo economics. But the fact that they are all contending for the votes of sensible people - many of whom read your column and accuse you of calumny - tells us that the real numbers may not matter.
The worst of this may be that this election may have very little to do with sense - which many of us can't tell - and feeling, which all of us can.
I'm afraid you will end up on the losing side if you don't make the voter feel, and if you just tell us to calculate. None of us can do that any more.
So convert your calculations into tales, Professor. Because come November, apart from getting the vote out, it would be your inability to get them to feel what is right and what they need, that would lose you the election.
And don't say you weren't told.
Because we all want low taxes, high incomes, free healthcare, free education, jail for banksters and racist police, wars that end themselves, immigration that happens elsewhere, your jobs back from everywhere else in the world, etc., etc.
But none of us know what is possible and what is not, unless you say it in a way I feel and want.
12
If a Nation's Economic growth depends solely on its domestic activity then Diplomacy becomes optional.But, especially in today's highly interwoven world most things r interdependent.In the Economic front there r areas of economy and investment sectors where America has the best accumulated expertise at. Reasonable financial allocation by private investors or governmental resources combined with the expertise results in a huge supply of badly needed products by the world's consumers.There is a shortage crisis hovering over the world with its ballooning population size that needs to be urgently acted upon, knowledgeable enough people know the specifics.Timely multilateral activities require a relaxed maneuvering room, stability, a fitting cooperation, understanding various cultural nuances and sensitivities.It is here that a good diplomatic finesse is an essential component.In broadening investment domains and forming healthy relations there are ground works the O.Adm has already laid out and US's private sectors,US's public and partnering countries are already potential beneficiaries.Scrapping such hardly won achievements in good relations and cooperation will set things back tremendously.Solidly established structure can also b durable and aesthetically appealing : Will the Manhattan sky line b more appealing to tourists if the Empire State building is demolished and replaced, say, by glittering golden colored tower of the same height?.TMD, an aspiring bridge between people.
3
Donald Trump is clearly pulling the Republican Party to the left in some significant ways. Yes, Trump is for big tax cuts for the rich. On the other hand, he has not taken the oath, de rigueur for Republicans, never to raise taxes. Trump is against free trade deals. Trump does not send up a racist dog whistle by railing against welfare and food stamp recipients. Trump has promised not to cut Social Security or Medicare. Trump is against an interventionist foreign policy. The above positions are why Donald Trump horrifies the Republican establishment, not his hard line against immigration.
26
The Republican Party is no more the party I never voted for than it is today. I have no idea what lever actual Conservatives pull when they vote if at all.
The Democrats it appears have enfolded Lincoln's stated followers into their brand of neoliberalism leaving the so called socialist Mr. Sanders to take over what is left of what used to be the party of working Americans.
Although we have never lost our prejudice toward both Afro-Americans and Jews we really are a country dramatically changed from the nation which helped Europe defeat the Nazis. My kids have no idea what either political party was not so very long ago and given the present crop of candidates, as well as both houses of Congress, there is little likelihood they ever will.
Save the longshot of the Senator from Vermont, regardless who wins the Presidency will not head a government remotely representative of the people, but we will bleat as we are led to the slaughterhouse that one of the executioners is better than the other.
It matters little who deals in the sorry game being played as we and unfortunately most commentators who should really know better fall for it like rubes playing three card monte.
Criticism is something too few are qualified to offer and less have the wit to understand.
The Democrats it appears have enfolded Lincoln's stated followers into their brand of neoliberalism leaving the so called socialist Mr. Sanders to take over what is left of what used to be the party of working Americans.
Although we have never lost our prejudice toward both Afro-Americans and Jews we really are a country dramatically changed from the nation which helped Europe defeat the Nazis. My kids have no idea what either political party was not so very long ago and given the present crop of candidates, as well as both houses of Congress, there is little likelihood they ever will.
Save the longshot of the Senator from Vermont, regardless who wins the Presidency will not head a government remotely representative of the people, but we will bleat as we are led to the slaughterhouse that one of the executioners is better than the other.
It matters little who deals in the sorry game being played as we and unfortunately most commentators who should really know better fall for it like rubes playing three card monte.
Criticism is something too few are qualified to offer and less have the wit to understand.
13
Ok, now Krugman takes a shot at the GOP side.
Hmmm, it come down to Bernie’s Voodooness vs the GOP crankery.
One is based on a 5.3% economic rate of growth by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure while the other is just SOP, pie-in-the-sky hocus-pocus Trickle down.
Bernie’s rate isn’t so far-fetched. Just go back to the Reagan years from 1983-1985 to see similar rates. On the other hand, supply-side foolery never goes out of style because the wealthy elites, corporations and Plutocracy love the wealth transfer that will come their way at our expense. In one scenario the whole country wins. In the other scenario, only the people at the top do.
Maybe some should remind Mr. Rubio/Trump about the “huge” deficits caused by tax cuts during time of war. Certainly, all the deficits hawks were in their caves snoozing at the time. Not surprisingly, they came out right after Obama came in to office and after Congress passed the $800B Wall St Bailouts.
This year’s election is a referendum on the current economic, social and political state of this country. Establishment vs non-establishment. Liberals vs Conservatives. The people vs the Plutocracy/ wealthy elites. Democratic Socialism vs unfettered capitalism/ greed.
No matter how much the Corporate Conservative media spins it, people are fed up with the status quo and they want real change. Austerity, sluggish economic growth, stagnant wages, and endless wars just isn’t cutting it anymore. Enough is enough...
Hmmm, it come down to Bernie’s Voodooness vs the GOP crankery.
One is based on a 5.3% economic rate of growth by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure while the other is just SOP, pie-in-the-sky hocus-pocus Trickle down.
Bernie’s rate isn’t so far-fetched. Just go back to the Reagan years from 1983-1985 to see similar rates. On the other hand, supply-side foolery never goes out of style because the wealthy elites, corporations and Plutocracy love the wealth transfer that will come their way at our expense. In one scenario the whole country wins. In the other scenario, only the people at the top do.
Maybe some should remind Mr. Rubio/Trump about the “huge” deficits caused by tax cuts during time of war. Certainly, all the deficits hawks were in their caves snoozing at the time. Not surprisingly, they came out right after Obama came in to office and after Congress passed the $800B Wall St Bailouts.
This year’s election is a referendum on the current economic, social and political state of this country. Establishment vs non-establishment. Liberals vs Conservatives. The people vs the Plutocracy/ wealthy elites. Democratic Socialism vs unfettered capitalism/ greed.
No matter how much the Corporate Conservative media spins it, people are fed up with the status quo and they want real change. Austerity, sluggish economic growth, stagnant wages, and endless wars just isn’t cutting it anymore. Enough is enough...
91
Listening to the main GOP politicians in the USA one is reminded of the leading talk in France in the months preceding the first World War. Overestimation of one's possibilities, agression and a solid projection of phantasiees that would represent international reality. Scary. The consequences were even scarier and resulted in WW2. Are people wiser nowadyas? No.
12
On the Republican side the voters are proving they will do whatever necessary to beat the fix.
On the Democratic side the fix is in.
On the Democratic side the fix is in.
10
One element of the the fix is the super delegates and their pre counting that is not really accurate but publicized as fact:
"Mrs. Clinton has 502 delegates to Mr. Sanders’s 70"
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/us/politics/delegate-count-leaving-ber...®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
"Mrs. Clinton has 502 delegates to Mr. Sanders’s 70"
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/us/politics/delegate-count-leaving-ber...®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
4
Rubio is a kept man who is so devoid of brain matter that he cannot even balance his own check book but has the advantage of being perfect puppet material which in the eyes of our masters is the one and only requirement for being President.
308
Rubio is worse than Trump. He's far more mean-spirited. He's got a lie for everything.
And if "most Republican voters don't actually subscribe to much of the party's official orthodoxy," it isn't because they subscribe to much at all (ignorance of facts prevents them from having much more than anger) and they will just as easily be pulled back into Rubio's corner if he defeats Trump in the primaries. Beware of Marco (Damien from "Omen Part II") Rubio.
And if "most Republican voters don't actually subscribe to much of the party's official orthodoxy," it isn't because they subscribe to much at all (ignorance of facts prevents them from having much more than anger) and they will just as easily be pulled back into Rubio's corner if he defeats Trump in the primaries. Beware of Marco (Damien from "Omen Part II") Rubio.
66
Krugman’s main theme was the uninformed, dangerous, destructive agenda of Marco Rubio.
Adding to the Rubio list:
His tax plan eliminates taxes on capital gains and dividends. He opposed reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, opposed abortion even for rape or incest, opposed gay marriage, and ran ads denouncing Christie for working with Obama during the Hurricane Sandy cleanup. These facts happened to come up in the Feb. 4 NYT articles on national politics.
Hypocrisy check: Rubio’s state Florida had several major hurricanes in 2004 that Bush helped clean up. It boosted Bush’s image for the election that year. http://floridadisaster.org/hurricanes/2004/
Regarding the letter, it was not printed until Feb. 8. The Inquirer assigns titles, which was, “Marco Rubio is hardly a moderate”.
Adding to the Rubio list:
His tax plan eliminates taxes on capital gains and dividends. He opposed reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, opposed abortion even for rape or incest, opposed gay marriage, and ran ads denouncing Christie for working with Obama during the Hurricane Sandy cleanup. These facts happened to come up in the Feb. 4 NYT articles on national politics.
Hypocrisy check: Rubio’s state Florida had several major hurricanes in 2004 that Bush helped clean up. It boosted Bush’s image for the election that year. http://floridadisaster.org/hurricanes/2004/
Regarding the letter, it was not printed until Feb. 8. The Inquirer assigns titles, which was, “Marco Rubio is hardly a moderate”.
3
How shocking not that another NYT columnist has dismissed Bernie Sanders and proclaimed Hillary the nominee. I wonder why those folks in the primaries in March shoukd even bother to cast their votes.
22
Why is an avowed INDEPENDENT running in the Democrats nomination contest? Why didn't he run directly for election as POTUS as an INDEPENDENT? Nothing would have stopped all those supposedly registered democrats from voting for him in the general election.
6
As shocking as it may sound, Bernie embodies TRULY the conscience, the essence of the liberals and progressives. One famous economist, self proclaimed as "the conscience" has surrendered it to incrementalism, pragmatism, realism, dashing all the hopes of those smiling young faces of millennials - men, women, transgenders, gays and lesbians of all colors - who had dared to dream and hope. Their mothers, aunts, grandmothers came along in a war cry of feminism, with rolling pins and crushed the dreams into a pulp that will not bake till another Bernie Sanders comes along, maybe a century from now. (Mom here)
13
A new proposed Trumper sticker (patent pending) for your car. "America's toilet is backed up, so let's burn down the house."
13
When economists contemplate the end of the Great Depression they tend to think in terms of charts and graphs that are mostly irrelevant. What actually happened was the New Deal came along and the government took over the system during WWII: wage and price controls, 8.5 million drafted into the Army, government expenditures 40% of GDP, a top tax rate of 94%, and rationing as private debt fell from 141% to 67% of GDP. The income share of the bottom 90% increased over 20% during the war and didn’t fall until the 1980s. Social insurance came to be; government’s share of GDP more than doubled, and the financial system was strictly regulated after the war. http://www.rweconomics.com/htm/WDCh3e.htm
The economic system that emerged from the New Deal and WWII was not the system that led us into the 1930s. It was a system of higher taxes, more government, strict regulation, and less inequality. This was what pulled us out of the Great Depression and into the economic prosperity that followed WWII, not the magical workings of free markets or the monetary and fiscal policies of Keynesian economics. And neither free markets nor monetary or fiscal policies are going to get us out of the Great Recession we face today or allow us to avoid another worldwide catastrophe comparable to WWII.
What we need is the kind of overhaul of the system offered by Sanders. http://www.rweconomics.com/LTLGAD.htm Neither the Republicans nor Clinton are up to the task. http://www.rweconomics.com/Deficit.htm
The economic system that emerged from the New Deal and WWII was not the system that led us into the 1930s. It was a system of higher taxes, more government, strict regulation, and less inequality. This was what pulled us out of the Great Depression and into the economic prosperity that followed WWII, not the magical workings of free markets or the monetary and fiscal policies of Keynesian economics. And neither free markets nor monetary or fiscal policies are going to get us out of the Great Recession we face today or allow us to avoid another worldwide catastrophe comparable to WWII.
What we need is the kind of overhaul of the system offered by Sanders. http://www.rweconomics.com/LTLGAD.htm Neither the Republicans nor Clinton are up to the task. http://www.rweconomics.com/Deficit.htm
525
Excellent analysis. Of interest will be a clear statement from Sanders and Clinton demanding equality, higher taxes on the wealthy and on speculation and expansion of federal infrastructure construction. While each has advocated these positions, they must, like FDR, embrace the compelling National Security requirements that these policies would satisfy.
3
Such overhaul can only happen when a crisis comparable to WWII hits. No such crisis is in the horizon. There cannot be an overhaul without a very large percentage of the population supporting it. It may happen if they believe their way of life is at stake. For all the stagnating wages and increase in poverty the percentage of the population truly facing a bleak future is not large enough for a revolution.
6
George
In the real world, the choice is actually between Republican law-of-the-jungle, un regulated crony capitalism on the one hand, and a regulated market-type economy, with some income and health security, environmental and labor protections. The latter is exactly what came out of the New Deal and Post-WWII period; the Right has been assaulting those protections for decades.
A majority of Americans, working people who actually regularly show up for elections, will never accept a lot of rhetoric about "revolutions", nor will they even consider a 40% expansion in the size of government or substantial, significant increases in their income tax rates. If they have to choose between a socialist on the far, far left of American politics ,and the orange-haired demagogue, they will choose the latter, and you can forget these "polls' suggesting otherwise. Sanders will be buried alive in a barrage of propaganda, and legitimate questions on his fiscal math, and would be lucky to carry a half-dozen states. Mondale carried one or two after endorsing tax increases, and he was an actual Democrat, with no socialist baggage.
In the real world, the choice is actually between Republican law-of-the-jungle, un regulated crony capitalism on the one hand, and a regulated market-type economy, with some income and health security, environmental and labor protections. The latter is exactly what came out of the New Deal and Post-WWII period; the Right has been assaulting those protections for decades.
A majority of Americans, working people who actually regularly show up for elections, will never accept a lot of rhetoric about "revolutions", nor will they even consider a 40% expansion in the size of government or substantial, significant increases in their income tax rates. If they have to choose between a socialist on the far, far left of American politics ,and the orange-haired demagogue, they will choose the latter, and you can forget these "polls' suggesting otherwise. Sanders will be buried alive in a barrage of propaganda, and legitimate questions on his fiscal math, and would be lucky to carry a half-dozen states. Mondale carried one or two after endorsing tax increases, and he was an actual Democrat, with no socialist baggage.
9
The moral of this story, I'm very much afraid, is that we, all the generations of us, just can't learn. This apparent fact shows itself as well in the growing body of articles and op-eds concerning the fall of a united Europe and the rise of so many impetuses to war detailed in our history books. We see it as well in China's absolute refusal to accept international norms in the South China Sea. Those missiles on those artificial islands say a very great deal. So it seems that every two or three generations humans must experience economic and martial horror in order to recognize its progenitors and shut them down, or at least make a mighty effort to keep them at bay. Apocalypticists see this as inevitable: after all, the Bible understands Man to his bitter core. The sins of the fathers will always be visited upon the heads of the children, right? It's depressing to think so, but maybe the conservatives have it right, and the progressives truly are just plain naive.
2
This column just leads to questions. Ok so Rubio is terrifying. So what is Hillary’s idea for tax rates on cap gains or on earned income, as opposed to Rubio’s? On balancing the budget?
Even if she won’t ‘genuflect to the alter of supply side economics and hard money’ (Krugman is so picturesque), what will she do about the demand side---consumer purchasing power—which in turn relates to job creation and wages?
What’s her reaction to Sanders’ big infrastructure spending proposal to create jobs? To financial transaction taxes to pay for education, etc? How about regulation of medical costs by negotiating with insurance and drug co’s?
What do Hillary’s big donors want? Nothing?
Ok, she’s not a fringe crank, like Rubio. Well that’s a relief, but what does she plan to do and how? Maybe in the next column?
Even if she won’t ‘genuflect to the alter of supply side economics and hard money’ (Krugman is so picturesque), what will she do about the demand side---consumer purchasing power—which in turn relates to job creation and wages?
What’s her reaction to Sanders’ big infrastructure spending proposal to create jobs? To financial transaction taxes to pay for education, etc? How about regulation of medical costs by negotiating with insurance and drug co’s?
What do Hillary’s big donors want? Nothing?
Ok, she’s not a fringe crank, like Rubio. Well that’s a relief, but what does she plan to do and how? Maybe in the next column?
44
Despite being a narcissist, sexist xenophobe, on major issues Trump is more progressive than Hillary, amazing but true:
Trump opposes cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid - she doesn't.
Trump supports universal health care - she doesn't
Trump was critical of the Iraq war - she wasn't
Trump wants to insulate politics from Wall Street - she is the preferred Wall Street candidate.
If people vote on issues not labels, a ton of progressives will have a conundrum. That's why she loses to him in national match-ups.
http://fb.me/6o1Hoyq3Q
Trump opposes cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid - she doesn't.
Trump supports universal health care - she doesn't
Trump was critical of the Iraq war - she wasn't
Trump wants to insulate politics from Wall Street - she is the preferred Wall Street candidate.
If people vote on issues not labels, a ton of progressives will have a conundrum. That's why she loses to him in national match-ups.
http://fb.me/6o1Hoyq3Q
7
Exactly. I have noted as well that of all the GOP candidates, progressives and Democrats should find Trump by far the most acceptable.
I can imagine on Day One, Trump would say something like this: "Oh, you mean net immigration with Mexico is near-zero? And I can't order the Mexican government to pay for a wall? OK, forget about that one. Next!"
And then the Republicans will have elected a social moderate, who won't threaten Social Security or Medicare, who would raise taxes on the 1%, and would pursue a more restrained foreign policy than anyone should hope for from Clinton.
As a bonus for our side, he's also more than happy to flay other Republicans, jettisoning that 11th commandment with glee.
I can imagine on Day One, Trump would say something like this: "Oh, you mean net immigration with Mexico is near-zero? And I can't order the Mexican government to pay for a wall? OK, forget about that one. Next!"
And then the Republicans will have elected a social moderate, who won't threaten Social Security or Medicare, who would raise taxes on the 1%, and would pursue a more restrained foreign policy than anyone should hope for from Clinton.
As a bonus for our side, he's also more than happy to flay other Republicans, jettisoning that 11th commandment with glee.
Ron T
Total baloney, with the usual Hillary-bashing. Trump has been on both sides of every one of those issues, what comes out of his mouth on any given day is meaningless. Wall Street, contrary to your claim, despises Clinton's position on expanding Dodd Frank regulation, with President Trump the ACA and Dodd Frank are gone on day one. But you can bet there will be lots of upper-end tax cuts, all beneficial to Donald Trump. Hillary is promising upper bracket tax increases- only. Sorry Mitt, sorry Donald.
Total baloney, with the usual Hillary-bashing. Trump has been on both sides of every one of those issues, what comes out of his mouth on any given day is meaningless. Wall Street, contrary to your claim, despises Clinton's position on expanding Dodd Frank regulation, with President Trump the ACA and Dodd Frank are gone on day one. But you can bet there will be lots of upper-end tax cuts, all beneficial to Donald Trump. Hillary is promising upper bracket tax increases- only. Sorry Mitt, sorry Donald.
9
Just what I needed to start my new week off. Krugman reminding me what I already know, I.e., my country is in danger of being led by a crank if one of the top two Republican lightweights running for President wins in November. Who could have predicted those Freemasons who donned their Indian costumes after their lodge meeting in Lexington to go down to the Bay for a Tea Party would lead us into such a potential mess?
14
Though I won't vote for Trump, I think Rubio is worse. And Cruz? The WORST.
808
@bnyc: I know what you mean. Can't stand Rubio either. But really, Donald Trump on the world stage? However, maybe, yes, Cruz might be even worse.
5
You live in the Big Apple. The Republican establishment don't CARE who you vote for, they just need to get enough rural and suburban votes in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
See some of the RW apocalyptic fiction, the setup usually involves somehow, magically 100 million or more useless moocher city dwellers conveniently dying or killing each other off so the True American rural elements can restore the greatness of America.
See some of the RW apocalyptic fiction, the setup usually involves somehow, magically 100 million or more useless moocher city dwellers conveniently dying or killing each other off so the True American rural elements can restore the greatness of America.
11
I guess that leaves Hillary and Benie if you intend to vote, as all good citizens should.
4
Does this mean that anyone can run in the Republican primaries and co-opt their voters?
1
Trump's success would say yes.
8
As far back as I can remember 6he GOP has been touting the benefits of tax cuts. Rubio is just amplifying that mantra to reel in the economically ignorant,
They know nothing of economics, but think they do, and it appeals to them, it sounds plausible and that is what they want to hear. Trump, Rubio, Cruz, they do not care if it is real, or valid, t hey just want to get elected so they can continue their quest to become the next Fuhrer, and they will stop at nothing to achieve it.
They know nothing of economics, but think they do, and it appeals to them, it sounds plausible and that is what they want to hear. Trump, Rubio, Cruz, they do not care if it is real, or valid, t hey just want to get elected so they can continue their quest to become the next Fuhrer, and they will stop at nothing to achieve it.
32
And who does better head to head,
It's Bernie does better instead,
On 538,
Hill'ry isn't great
A fact that you hardly hear said!
It's Bernie does better instead,
On 538,
Hill'ry isn't great
A fact that you hardly hear said!
129
For all those democrats who are so excited about Bernie Sanders, AN INDEPENDENT, I have one question. Why is Sanders running in the Democratic primary instead of campaigning directly for election as POTUS as an INDEPENDENT? If he wins the nomination in his contest with Hillary, does he run in the general election as a democrat or an independent? The man has never found it worth being a democrat and now democrats have all gone wild over him? Would they have been just as wild over him if he was running as an independent? I wish somebody would explain it all to me, a registered democrat who is supporting the only democrat in the democrats primary.
12
Kwameata, what you are saying is Hillary should run unopposed because she is entitled to become the President, because she is most qualified, and she is the first woman, and she has the entire democratic establishment rooting for her. Realize for the briefest second that this democratic establishment is exactly what has corrupted the system, along with the Republican establishment and needs an overhaul because of dirty money ingrained in it through and through. Just as the Republicans have big money dictating their policies and obnoxious behavior, so is the democratic party corrupted, Mr Obama is amnesic, he has forgotten he ran to fix the system. At least Trump has the courage to call the entire republican party out, he is bravely taking on one candidate after the other. Bernie is doing it in a different way, from grounds up, grass roots, exciting and inspiring the youth to take back what is truly their own future to inherit.
9
Usually I recommend your little ditties, but this one is fantasy land. I check 538 obsessively to keep me sane. Hillary is doing just fine.
5
I’m not sure I disagree with Paul.
At the outset, Rubio was far more moderate before he became about out-Cruzing Cruz and since concluding that Americans want a non-celibate RC priest as their president – but only one once baptized a Mormon who seriously is investigating the Southern Baptists for fit. I once supported Rubio as Jeb!’s Veep nominee, but that was before Marco became so canonical and before Jeb! disappeared. These days, the least likely man to capture the Republican nomination is the one likeliest to do it justice, Kasich – and we’re all counting the days before HE runs out of money, along with Carson, leaving it all to Hitler and Bozo the Clown.
But Paul talks glibly about cranks now that the man best suited to make this a meaningful election, along with Hillary, has been run off the field for “low energy”, a frank disdain for incandescence on the hustings and the remarkably bad choice of who his brother is – but mostly because he wasn’t a protest candidate in an election that is all ABOUT protest candidates.
What’s most entertaining, though, is the patent contempt the pundit liberati hold for relatively moderate, establishment Republicans, like Bush, like me. Serves you right if Trump DOES take it and destroys Hillary with precisely the same ad baculum tactics he used so effectively on Bush. If Jeb! had a three-foot baggage train, Hillary has one that stretches through three STATES.
Be careful of who benefits from your punditry. You might just get him.
At the outset, Rubio was far more moderate before he became about out-Cruzing Cruz and since concluding that Americans want a non-celibate RC priest as their president – but only one once baptized a Mormon who seriously is investigating the Southern Baptists for fit. I once supported Rubio as Jeb!’s Veep nominee, but that was before Marco became so canonical and before Jeb! disappeared. These days, the least likely man to capture the Republican nomination is the one likeliest to do it justice, Kasich – and we’re all counting the days before HE runs out of money, along with Carson, leaving it all to Hitler and Bozo the Clown.
But Paul talks glibly about cranks now that the man best suited to make this a meaningful election, along with Hillary, has been run off the field for “low energy”, a frank disdain for incandescence on the hustings and the remarkably bad choice of who his brother is – but mostly because he wasn’t a protest candidate in an election that is all ABOUT protest candidates.
What’s most entertaining, though, is the patent contempt the pundit liberati hold for relatively moderate, establishment Republicans, like Bush, like me. Serves you right if Trump DOES take it and destroys Hillary with precisely the same ad baculum tactics he used so effectively on Bush. If Jeb! had a three-foot baggage train, Hillary has one that stretches through three STATES.
Be careful of who benefits from your punditry. You might just get him.
5
If we get him, Richard, so will you.
12
As usual, a great letter, a pleasure to read. If Trump does win it, I'll take comfort in knowing that four years of President Trump will be followed by eight years of President Warren. The pendulum continues to swing.
4
Ah, so it's the media's fault! It couldn't be Jeb! Precisely what stage of grief are you currently in, Richard?
11
And what of the crank economics practiced by the Clintons. Bill Clinton had the luck to be president during a bull market in high technology. That bull market is long gone, along with the productivity increases that accompanied it.
People mistake what happened in those years for what he actually stood for, which is what we have known more recently as zombie economics. His administration acquiesced more to big corporate interests than any Democrat in memory. He is largely responsible for all the bad things that happened to the economy during the latter Bush years. He was no Jack Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson. Even Jimmy Carter had more guts, Hillary will be a an equally big disaster.
The only way things will improve for most people is to re-redistribute the wealth of that era down to the people who worked for it, and are now sorely needed to spend it. Only an demand side increase is going to revive the moribund economy.
People mistake what happened in those years for what he actually stood for, which is what we have known more recently as zombie economics. His administration acquiesced more to big corporate interests than any Democrat in memory. He is largely responsible for all the bad things that happened to the economy during the latter Bush years. He was no Jack Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson. Even Jimmy Carter had more guts, Hillary will be a an equally big disaster.
The only way things will improve for most people is to re-redistribute the wealth of that era down to the people who worked for it, and are now sorely needed to spend it. Only an demand side increase is going to revive the moribund economy.
91
Bill Clinton was last president around 15 years ago. The dot-com bubble burst as his presidency was coming to its end. Those who remember it remember that it was over with completely before 9/11 even became a problem.
But, by every measure, the Great Recession was a far more serious problem. The fact that Obama has not brought back "the good old days" before Lehmann Brothers bit the dust is proof of the severity of the Great Recession, not proof that Obama is feckless and hopeless.
Are you really suggesting that Hillary Clinton will be a disaster economically? On what basis do you think so? Do you think she has learned nothing from her husband's presidency?
But, by every measure, the Great Recession was a far more serious problem. The fact that Obama has not brought back "the good old days" before Lehmann Brothers bit the dust is proof of the severity of the Great Recession, not proof that Obama is feckless and hopeless.
Are you really suggesting that Hillary Clinton will be a disaster economically? On what basis do you think so? Do you think she has learned nothing from her husband's presidency?
14
Not as you recall. Clinton did not just run on fixing the economy. He kept Treasury on the job. Problems with the Ruble, with Indonesia, and with the Peso were all addressed in an adult manner and did not metastisize.
There has been a clear difference between Democratic and Republican administrations, as the numbers show.
There has been a clear difference between Democratic and Republican administrations, as the numbers show.
14
amboycharlie
A nice series of fact-free assertions, totally unlinked to reality:
1. Moderate Democrats Obama and Clinton produced 30 million jobs; Bush zero. You claim it's all "luck". Right -sane fiscal policy had nothing to do with it.
2. He (Clinton) "is largely responsible for all the bad things that happened to the economy during the latter Bush years.." Sure, just like Ronald Reagan was "really responsible "for the economic prosperity and balanced budgets of the late 90's. Ask any Republican; the Bernie-istas sound more like them all the time.
A nice series of fact-free assertions, totally unlinked to reality:
1. Moderate Democrats Obama and Clinton produced 30 million jobs; Bush zero. You claim it's all "luck". Right -sane fiscal policy had nothing to do with it.
2. He (Clinton) "is largely responsible for all the bad things that happened to the economy during the latter Bush years.." Sure, just like Ronald Reagan was "really responsible "for the economic prosperity and balanced budgets of the late 90's. Ask any Republican; the Bernie-istas sound more like them all the time.
18
It's become about who's the bigger crank: the candidates or the corporate mainstream pundits who shamelessly tout false narratives about their favorites.
Hillary Clinton won the Iowa caucus by a hair, lost New Hampshire in a landslide and won Nevada by a slim margin that, barely two weeks ago, was a solid 25 points, down from 40 in the fall. A 5 point lead in a dwindling national standing does not constitute inevitability.
As for the other side, the corporate punditry has been grasping at straws since Trump entered the fray. Jeb! finally bowed out this weekend. He was the most obvious poster boy for the establishment on the right. GOP voters never wanted any part of what he represents. I've been predicting for months now that Trump will take the nomination and he's on his way. See http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-22B
In a world where even facts and figures are presented with a skew, how is one to find truth? In the echo chamber that pundits created for themselves, two lone honest voices were heard last week, both expressing a healthy amount of self-doubt and stating, up front, what their point of view makes them prone to. Honesty, that's a rare virtue these days. In other countries, data are presented with error bands. We don't do that here. Why? Some notions here: http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-22n
Amy Goodman was on CNN on Sunday, talking about media and polls. Every voter should take what she said to heart. Make your own decisions, based on facts you triple-check. You won't find them here.
Hillary Clinton won the Iowa caucus by a hair, lost New Hampshire in a landslide and won Nevada by a slim margin that, barely two weeks ago, was a solid 25 points, down from 40 in the fall. A 5 point lead in a dwindling national standing does not constitute inevitability.
As for the other side, the corporate punditry has been grasping at straws since Trump entered the fray. Jeb! finally bowed out this weekend. He was the most obvious poster boy for the establishment on the right. GOP voters never wanted any part of what he represents. I've been predicting for months now that Trump will take the nomination and he's on his way. See http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-22B
In a world where even facts and figures are presented with a skew, how is one to find truth? In the echo chamber that pundits created for themselves, two lone honest voices were heard last week, both expressing a healthy amount of self-doubt and stating, up front, what their point of view makes them prone to. Honesty, that's a rare virtue these days. In other countries, data are presented with error bands. We don't do that here. Why? Some notions here: http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-22n
Amy Goodman was on CNN on Sunday, talking about media and polls. Every voter should take what she said to heart. Make your own decisions, based on facts you triple-check. You won't find them here.
192
I ran out of room to link to Amy Goodman who, arguably, might just be the last honest journalist http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-22x
In a well-circulated NYT piece criticizing Sanders' economic platform, economist Jared Bernstein was quoted. Subsequently, Bernstein wrote two posts to complete what was printed here: http://www.rimaregas.com/2016/02/jared-bernstein-on-berniesanders-econom...
In a well-circulated NYT piece criticizing Sanders' economic platform, economist Jared Bernstein was quoted. Subsequently, Bernstein wrote two posts to complete what was printed here: http://www.rimaregas.com/2016/02/jared-bernstein-on-berniesanders-econom...
3
Rima, love, since Bernie can't seem to excite enough brain cells to concoct at least an ATTEMPT at a plan to get through the tiniest part of his agenda through a Congress adamantly opposed to everything he believes -- and, if judged by his general isolation as a senator, to him personally -- perhaps you could do him the favor of concocting it FOR him. You can even feel free to provide links to others who agree with you.
This is a serious challenge. He's losing, and will continue to lose, because while a lot of people support what he wants to do, fewer and fewer of them across the range of our demographics believe he can deliver anything other than four years of scolding but utterly ineffective invective, while Hillary likely could deliver maybe 25% of her own programs through dickering. To most who vote, apparently 25% of a less incendiary agenda is a ton better than nada.
This is a serious challenge. He's losing, and will continue to lose, because while a lot of people support what he wants to do, fewer and fewer of them across the range of our demographics believe he can deliver anything other than four years of scolding but utterly ineffective invective, while Hillary likely could deliver maybe 25% of her own programs through dickering. To most who vote, apparently 25% of a less incendiary agenda is a ton better than nada.
32
@Richard
The revolution isn't being televised, but it's here!
The revolution isn't being televised, but it's here!
17
Who reads this journal? Articles are by and for academics, political scientists and the Foreign Service, not the average American. So, one would assume Mr. Rubio would want to demonstrate to this audience a deep understanding the complexities of Middle East policy.
Yet, if this is the level of his understanding of the culture, demographics, history, and economics of the Middle East, Mr. Rubio demonstrates profound ignorance on the same level as President George W. Bush and his administration did in going to war in Iraq, ostensibly to create a democratic Iraq.
Bluntly, Mr. Rubio would receive an A for his essay in a high school history course, a D- in a junior level college political science course and an F in any state university graduate course in political science. Mr. Rubio is a lightweight when it comes to foreign policy, and equally dangerous to the country as Prof. Krugman points of for his understanding economics.