home

Not Caring About Deficits

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 08:58:41 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Paul Krugman responds to Ezra Klein:

[O]nce you realize that the GOP is not now, and never has been (at least not since the 1970s) concerned about the deficit. All the fiscal posturing of the last couple of years has been about using the deficit as a club to smash the welfare state, with the secondary goal of frustrating any efforts on the part of the Obama administration to help the struggling economy.

The entire debate has been fake. If you don’t understand that, or can’t bring yourself to admit it, you’re missing the whole story.

Fair and balanced in the Beltway.

< Monday Night Open Thread | Kelo v. Drill, Baby, Drill! >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Not Caring About Deficits | 39 comments (39 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Wake me up when Ezra does a column (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:32:57 PM EST
    on why deficits don't matter, why we shouldn't be going all austere now, when spending and demand are  stagnant in the private sector, instead of just leaving it at, "well, the GOP says one thing in this arena and something else in another - ooh, they're hypocrites!"   Hey, Ezra - I'm not stupid, I can see that the GOP is talking out of both sides of its collective mouth, as usual, so what you could do, Ezra - but you won't - is educate your readers on what's wrong with the deficit talk.

    But, you know why Ezra won't do that?  Because a lot of the deficit talk is coming straight out of the Oval Office - it's why we got the first Deficit Commission when Congress rejected creating one, it's why we got the second Deficit Commission, in hope of coming up with an Obama-approved Grand Bargain to...cut the deficit, get our fiscal house in order, make the government live within its means.  It's why we got talk about entitlement cuts and tweaks and changes and fixes.

    And we all know that if Ezra calls BS on deficit talk, no matter where it's coming from, he's not going to be teacher's pet anymore.  And that would be ever so awful.  So all he's doing for now is dangling the evil Republicans in the faces of the people to scare them into thinking the Democrat is way better, when we all know that the differences are, at best, marginal ones.

    As for Krugman, all he did was hand Ezra a well-deserved cup of STFU.

    Here's everything wanted, don't YOU look dumb! (none / 0) (#23)
    by Addison on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 05:01:36 PM EST
    The Republicans aren't living up to their rhetoric or being suitably anti-Keynesian, therefore it somehow redounds to the President's favor that he is being suitably anti-Keynesian because if he were a Republican he wouldn't be a hypocrite? Or something? Is that how this works?

    He's got those Republicans right where he wants them, looking like hypocrites to a handful in the beltway class and getting everything they ever wanted out of fiscal policy! What losers?

    Parent

    If Ezra (none / 0) (#24)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 08:42:07 PM EST
    Had written just such a column, would you have to concede that your attacks were unfair?

    Parent
    if someone (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 07:25:41 AM EST
    untwisted you, would you admit you'd twisted yourself in to a pretzel?
    Why not just address Anne directly with what you want to say?

    Parent
    Because the point (none / 0) (#35)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 05:14:54 PM EST
    is being made quite nicely by the fact that it doesn't matter what Ezra has actually written before.  Just as it doesn't matter at this point if Obama's economic policies turned into smashing successes, or whether ACA covered 2.5 million more young adults (which we found out today it did) or any of a number of possible facts.

    Minds have been made up and facts are irrelevant.

    Me? I think Obama could be a huge failure but we don't know yet and won't know for 2-3 more years. I think Ezra and Yglesias and those like them could be revealed as completely wrong on everything, etc.

    It's possible that I, on many, man issues, am completely wrong.  The point is that Anne and others don't acknowledge even the possibility.  That's pretty damaging to any other points they make.  

    If you are talking to someone 100% convinced that they are right on most complex issues, you are talking to someone who is almost certainly wrong on the issue in some fundamental way.

    Parent

    If monkeys could fly (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 08:31:28 AM EST
    Would you concede that "The Wizard of Oz" was a true story?

    Parent
    Hilarious, jb - I love it! (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 08:39:03 AM EST
    Really needed a laugh this morning - thanks for this one!

    Parent
    I'd concede (none / 0) (#36)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 05:16:29 PM EST
    that those arguing that the flying monkeys in the book were based on a real phenomena probably deserve  a second listen.

    I mean it is real monkeys flying after all.

    Parent

    If Ezra had written such a column, (none / 0) (#25)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 09:21:04 PM EST
    I'd be happy to see it, and happy to agree with it, and I might even see it as a sign that he was growing and evolving and willing to risk the possible revocation of his all-access pass to the inner circle/cool kids table.  

    But, it wouldn't just make all his other Beltway-fluffing columns disappear into thin air.  And it wouldn't mean my previous criticism was wrong - more likely it would mean that he was beginning to respond to criticism.

    That's how it works, you know - you have to push these people, keep the pressure on them, hold them accountable.

    Once you tell them you love them unconditionally, that you will always be on their side, no matter what, you've lost whatever leverage you ever had a chance of having, and you become something with WELCOME written across it, that people feel free to wipe their feet on.

    Why would you ever want to be that?


    Parent

    Let's take it further (none / 0) (#27)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 11:52:24 PM EST
    You assume that this hypothetical column was new.  What if he had written it years ago.  Would that cause you to second guess your blanket assumption?

    Parent
    You mean (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by Left of the Left on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 03:04:52 AM EST
    If Ezra had never been a puppet would Ann criticize him for having been one? I'm going to go with no.

    But then he has, she did, and most should-so that's a pretty pointless thing to talk about.

    Parent

    What ABG is trying to do is "prove" (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 07:03:11 AM EST
    that I would be critical of Ezra even if he were writing the kinds of columns I think would be helpful to the debate and to the general knowledge of the reader, because Ezra supports Obama.  He wants to be able to say that, hypothetically, if I agree with Ezra, and Ezra supports Obama, then I must also agree with Obama.  And if I don't, then, I just plain hate Obama no matter what; for some reason, that's really important to him.

    Too bad that hypothetical won't work the way ABG wants it to, huh?

    What ABG doesn't want to factor into his hypothetical is that, if Ezra had been writing those kinds of columns all along, it would likely follow that - at least on the economic side of things - Ezra would be an Obama critic himself.

    Why?  For the reasons I stated in my original comment: Obama is at least as anxious to do major deficit reduction as any Republican you can name.  And at many points in the deficit-reduction conversation, Obama and Democrats have put "everything" on the table as possible sources for "savings," even programs that Democrats have long-protected because they served to support the least among us.

    So...once again, ABG thinks he's scored some sort of major "gotcha!" but even the casual reader understands that, once again, he's been hoist on his own rhetorical petard.

    Parent

    You have hit upon (none / 0) (#37)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 05:18:27 PM EST
    precisely the reason that we butt heads and will continue to butt heads as long as we both comment here.

    You make this statement:

    "f Ezra had been writing those kinds of columns all along, it would likely follow that - at least on the economic side of things - Ezra would be an Obama critic himself."

    no no no no no no no no no no no no no.

    That does not follow at all for the reasons I give here almost daily at this point.  You are simply wrong.

    Parent

    So...you're actually going to claim that (none / 0) (#39)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 09:12:03 PM EST
    if Ezra had been writing columns that exposed the fallacy of deficits and the urgency to eliminate them - if he had been ripping at the fabric of arguments that Obama has been pushing for the entirety of his administration - that that would not make Ezra an Obama critic.

    Ooooo-kay, then.

    Those "reasons" you give here are based on logic that is so contorted and so faulty that even you can't maintain any consistency in your arguments from one comment to the next; a JV high school debate team would laugh you off the stage.

    Parent

    Evidence (none / 0) (#30)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 06:15:17 AM EST
    Against the point be damned.

    As expected.

    Point proven.

    Parent

    Ezra (none / 0) (#38)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 05:28:25 PM EST
    Today, after the Krugman blast and after I posed the hypo to Anne above, wrote a column entitled "Debt is not Immoral".  The final line is as follows:

    "Our approach to deficits should, in other words, be based on some consistent, underlying theory, or at least a set of obvious principles. But it's not. And we have a worrying tendency to get moralistic about debt during recessions, which is exactly when it makes sense for the government to borrow, even as we ignore it during expansions, which is exactly when it doesn't make sense for the government to borrow."

    Link

    It's a common sense column.  It makes sense. Not much of anything to disagree with.  It's a column that could have been written by Krugman or even BTD.

    My point is that columns like this are ignored when evaluating people with the dreaded "Obamabot" tag.  It's pretty clear.

    Parent

    What Republicans care about (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 09:08:01 AM EST
    Their fat wallets and their tiny d*cks.  A very simple one-two ethos of selfishness and smegma.

    Also more proof that Ezra Klein... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 09:08:39 AM EST
    ...is far too young and stupid to have anything genuinely useful to say.  He needs to shut up for a decade, not write a word, and simply learn.

    Parent
    He would explode (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 09:22:07 AM EST
    if he tried that.

    Hmmm. Good suggestion, Dadler...

    Parent

    He's learning exactly what he needs to... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Addison on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 01:19:05 PM EST
    ...he's not trying to be a professor or a private sector consultant, after all. I don't want to sound too cynical here, but Klein's incentives are hardly toward producing useful, reliable, actionable analysis for the people he's writing about. Other people have that job in the parties, and we don't hear from them very often, and what we do hear is neutered by PR departments.

    Parent
    Fair and balanced (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 09:20:42 AM EST
    First, Plouffe suggested, Obama has an opportunity to improve his standing among independent voters -- many of whom deserted the Democrats in the 2010 midterm election -- by working with Republicans toward bipartisan deficit-reduction measures.
    Yes, a fair and balanced campaign (none / 0) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 11:15:23 AM EST
    strategy that, in the likely event of the Gingrich nomination, moves further to the right so as to assuredly  capture the jilted conservative love of the followers of  the David Brooks, Ross Douthats, Charles Krauthammers, and Joe Scarboroughs. In so doing, the Democrats, Republican leaning Independents  and the loyal, but reasonably sane Republicans are guaranteed, leaving Newt with the extremist, more labile Republicans.  Sounds like a plan.

    Parent
    You d@mn kids! Get off my lawn! (none / 0) (#5)
    by vicndabx on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 10:38:20 AM EST
    Paul is too busy bashing Ezra to see they're both making the same point.  Or, a distinction so minor it doesn't make a difference.

    Ezra:

    Washington Republicans say their reticence to pass a larger payroll tax cut is explained by the deficit. But out on the campaign trail, the Republican candidates seem unburdened by any similar concerns.

    Ezra hardly seems to be as ignorant about it as Paul thinks.  IMO Paul's worried about the young whippersnapper replacing him as the go to guy for left leaning economic opinion, so he's picking a fight here - for the wrong reasons.

    Hmmmm..... (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 11:04:09 AM EST
    Ezra Klein - no economic experience

    Paul Krugman - Nobel Prize in economics and a lifetime dedicated to studying it.

    Yup.  Pretty much the same

    Parent

    No argument from me on that point (none / 0) (#11)
    by vicndabx on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 11:36:06 AM EST


    Parent
    Ezra never really acknowledges (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by lilburro on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 11:11:32 AM EST
    that deficit kabuki is just that though.  He presents GOP proposals as though they are made in good faith.  Paul's point is that when you do that, you are missing the point.

    I mean, it shouldn't be difficult for Democrats to point out the complete policy gap here.  I am sure it will somehow be an insurmountable task for them, though.

    Parent

    Krugman never acknowledges (none / 0) (#9)
    by waldenpond on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 11:28:49 AM EST
    that Obama is a conservative (he's kind of, sort of bumped in to it) and Ezra is a White House mouth piece.

    Parent
    I guess.... (none / 0) (#10)
    by vicndabx on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 11:34:36 AM EST
    but, IMO, it seems like he's ridiculing the GOP just the same, while not using the same words Paul would use.

    Rather, the center of gravity in the party is between a plain extension of the current rates and no tax cut at all, and Speaker John Boehner is trying to win Republican support for the extension by turning it into leverage for a wholly unrelated priority: the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline.


    Parent
    Like he ridiculed Paul Ryan? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 11:41:41 AM EST
    Ezra is not stupid but he is a careerist, not that there is anything wrong with that, and needs to be read accordingly.

    TO me this is more about the Beltway than Ezra.

    Parent

    Very related. Incredibly so. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Addison on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 01:11:38 PM EST
    The Keystone XL pipeline is entirely related to the payroll tax cut. Couldn't be more related. Just on political grounds and not policy grounds.

    The payroll tax cut divides the GOP base amongst itself.

    The Keystone XL pipeline divides Democrats amongst themselves (along with splitting independents).

    None of this is mainly about policy, socio-fiscal (is that a neologism or just French?) or energy. If it were, a better policy would be pushed for re: socio-fiscal policy and a better policy would be pushed for re: energy policy. They don't care about policy at the moment, everything that's happening is political, save for a few true believers in each camp who happen to be getting their way this time.

    Both the pipeline and the payroll tax are operating as electoral Chinese finger traps for the other party. Entirely related, which is why they're being pitted against each other.

    Parent

    Well I don't (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by lilburro on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 02:36:43 PM EST
    really think he's ridiculing the GOP.  He doesn't connect the political dots of these disparate policy directions.  "Isn't that interesting, Herman Cain and Boehner live on two different planets."  He basically leaves it at that.  No stakes.  No consequences.

    Klein says "That can't poll well."  No, it can't, but I doubt anybody's actually polling it.  In part because who is out there effectively pointing out the absurdity of the GOP on the deficit?  

    The complete cognitive dissonance of the GOP is very real and yet it still holds Congress and Obama hostage.  

    I mean, an article that devotes multiple paragraphs to Herman Cain's tax plan is not brilliant political analysis almost by default.

    Parent

    It's the Beltway Way (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:18:57 PM EST


    Parent
    He presents that way (none / 0) (#18)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:13:47 PM EST
    because here because he's said that repeatedly before.  If you read Klein at all you know that he's hit the GOP over the head on exactly this topic.

    He's also tasked with writing a different column than Krugman.  Krugman can say whatever he wants and make no attempt to present a more balanced review of a situation because he's Krugman and he has a Nobel prize that says he can.

    Klein writes a different type of column, but if you look at it over time, he makes most of the same points Krugman is making.  

    I don't think Krugman was fair there.

    Parent

    Hits with feathers (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:18:35 PM EST
    It's the Beltway Way.

    Parent
    How is (none / 0) (#22)
    by lilburro on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 04:56:22 PM EST
    writing about Herman Cain's tax plan relevant?  

    a more balanced review of a situation

    What's "the balance" in this situation?  Pretending to take both "sides" of the GOP seriously?  As though there were a real intellectual argument happening there?  As though there were some real policy struggle in the GOP?  

    Klein and Krugman do write differently, sure.  But I'm not going to praise Ezra for taking Herman Cain seriously and helping others take him seriously.

    Parent

    Ezra is useless (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by kmblue on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 02:24:35 PM EST
    I stopped reading him a long time ago.  I'm glad Paul took a shot at him.  Ezra with his fake liberal claptrap is a worthy target.

    Parent
    worried about ezra replacing him as the go-to guy (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by DFLer on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 09:39:13 PM EST
    for economic opinion? you must be joking.

    Parent
    This brings to mind (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Left of the Left on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 03:08:12 AM EST
    the old Tom and Jerry cartoons, the musical sound effects used to depict Jerry laughing while slapping his knee.

    Paul's worried about the young whippersnapper replacing him as the go to guy for left leaning economic opinion,


    Parent
    This is exactly what I was going to say (none / 0) (#17)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:06:27 PM EST
    Ezra didn't say anything wrong in the column.  He didn't indicate that this wasn't always an issue.

    Krugman just took at a swing at him for no reason it seems like.  Ezra, Yglesias and a few others are now the defacto whipping boys for not expressing the required level of outrage about topic X or Y or not expressing outrage in the "right" way.

    I have some sympathy for their position.

    Parent

    Not Caring About Deficits | 39 comments (39 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment