Paul Krugman: Backbone!

[cal04]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/backbone/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

So President Obama — perhaps with some backstopping from Democrats in Congress — has his limits. And he seemed genuinely angry. Good.

More and more, I think this will end up with the constitutional option: just saying that the 14th amendment and the debt ceiling are incompatible, and ignoring the limit. Let the GOP go ahead and try to impeach: the whole world knows who’s intransigent here.

[DURHAM D]

1. A- f*ckin'- MEN

[Warpy]

2. Remember, they have the House and John Roberts

although it's not terribly likely the Senate would vote to remove him.

What it will do is show that any Democrat who is elected is likely to face the impeachment process simply because he is a Democrat.

The only question is whether the nation's couch potatoes will notice.

[mazzarro]

3. Unfortunately - dems/Pelosi took impeachment off the table for B*sh in the Iraq lie -- n/t

[Dept of Beer]

6. Couch potatoes or FatFuckAmerica won't notice until

American Idol is cancelled or the whole grid goes down.

There are a lot of lazy peasants in this country that need a good solid kick in the pants.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Contempt for the average citizen looks better on right wingers

Part of calling others 'lazy peasants' is the implication that you yourself are superior in status to the peasants. Naff ego tripping.

[Dept of Beer]

21. They are contemptible and lazy.

The average citizen is overweight, watches too much TV and couldn't give a sweet fuck about what happens tomorrow just as long as he gets to stuff his face with McCarcinogens.

[Iris]

4. Hell to the "yes!"

[Fool Count]

5. Paul Krugman should turn his "genius switch" back on.

Who the hell is going to buy the debt of questionable constitutional legitimacy?
Certainly not the Chinese. Then how does that solve the pending default problem?
It doesn't. It only makes it worse, since now even under-the-limit debt rollover
becomes legally suspect.

[Jim Lane]

8. At worst, the Treasury might have to pay a slightly higher interest rate.

Bonds issued by the U.S. government would still be one of the most secure vehicles available. They would be sold.

[Fool Count]

17. Most secure? Is that a joke? Not only do they yield zilch,

they are one week away from being in default. Some security.
I got rid of my last treasuries over two years ago, and I'm glad I did.
There are many better yielding and more secure vehicles to invest into.
For instance, Australian (non-interest bearing) cash yielded 45% over
last two years. US government bonds are a total rip-off, and a risky one
at that. What imbecile would buy US debt after August 2, if the debt ceiling
is not raised, on Obama's say-so that they are still OK, I have no idea.
US government is broke and unwilling to raise revenues. Even with properly
and legally increased debt limit, one has to worry about US creditworthiness.
Foreign investors have been losing money on US government bonds for over a year
already due to USD depreciation. If Obama goes the 14th amendment route, there
will be only one buyer for US debt - Federal Reserve. That means that they will
be redeeming maturing US debt with newly printed money. Not technically a default,
but a sure way to inflate the way out of the debt.

[Amonester]

10. Wait a minute (or two, or more).

Did the hostage (ie, the American People) takeR$ (ie, the teabagsteR$ republic$) already make it a "questionable constitutional legitimacy" by opposing it? Not that I think they won't make it (in order to "extend" their foolishness to the point of no return).

[Amonester]

14. Plus: Their bo$$ (Wall Street) has spoken. n t

[renegade000]

7. I see Krugman isn't as popular when he's saying non-pejorative things about Obama...n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. Krugman's non-stop commentary on this story has been a disgrace

The real evidence is that Krugman doesn't know fuck-all about what's going on, and that he's merely reacting to the events as any ordinary pundit would, without insight or knowledge.

One thing's for sure: I don't want to hear somebody like Professor Krugman bag on the "24-hour news cycle" again. He's very obviously doing it himself in the same way: this happened, then this happened, then this other thing happened, good, bad, bad, bad, good, point scoring, point losing, good, bad, good, sports metaphor, dogmatic claim, good, bad, and etc.

It's barely commentary more impressive than what I'd get at a local bar.

Krugman's not an analyst of these negotiations. He's an ordinary spectator at a tennis match.

[theophilus]

13. ...

:rofl:

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. He's the most prominent writer on the economy.

It's reasonable for him to comment on the events because once something tangible exists, it'll be too late to create an informed electorate to respond to it.

[xocet]

16. Your commentary on Krugman is just as baseless as my commentary on you, fellow spectator. n/t

[_ed_]

19. I always love message board people

who will just bash a nobel prize winning economist who teaches at an Ivy League school. Always hilarious.

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. All that makes it impossible for him to be acting foolishly

You have a higher esteem for the professorate than I do.

:rofl:

[treestar]

11. As far as I can tell, "backbone" would consist of being willing to

allow the default and hoping Rs don't want it and will cave.

But that risks allowing the default, and thus could be foolhardy.

But for those who insist on "spine" I would imagine they are willing to take the consequences, if they are the losing ones, in stride with no blaming the President? Yeah, right. Or give the President credit if the winning consequences occur? Yeah, right.

[Stuart G]

12. k and r