Krugman is correct but he's not right! He is brilliant on economics, naive on GOVERNANCE!

[cthulu2016]

58. That misses the real point

Say you know three things:

1) To work the stimulus has to be 2 trillion dollars.
2) Congress will not pass anything over 850 billion dollars today.
3) If limited to 850 billion dollars today unemployment will be even higher a year from now.


Knowing those things, what is the correct course?

You say, "To really work this needs to be 2 trillion dollars. We will negotiate to get whatever we can because one dollar is better than no dollars, but those obstructing a package that will work are just guaranteeing that unemployment will continue to rise."

First, it blames the obstructors for what is going to happen. Second, and more importantly, it is TRUE. If Obama thought the stimulus was too small then he should not have pretended otherwise.

The adequacy r inadequacy of the thing is a matter of economic fact. If inadequate then real things will happen down the road. And then you are sitting pretty because you can say, "I told you it was too small but you wouldn't listen. Now we need a bigger plan."

Instead we have Republicans saying the Obama stimulus didn't work and the WH has a hard time on defense because Obama said it was big enough and would be sufficient... he chose to own a bullshit republican-hindered package.

It is bad to lie to the American people. But it is very, very, very bad to lie to the American people in a way that is certain to make you look like a fool.

The (false) defense that Obama knew it was too small paints him as an idiot. If he knew that unemployment was going to go up then why did he chose to own that issue by saying that the package was fine? He would have to be stupider than Bush to do that.

The accurate defense is much kinder--that he just didn't get it at the time and misplayed the thing. I don't think he was lying, I think he didn't know he was wrong. People make mistakes. It happens.