Obama's Nobel Headache

interesting, Krugman had been a frequent critic of W's economic policies, for that he was called a communists by O'Reilly and other mouth pieces at Fox Noise.

To the extent that the mouth pieces have also been critical of Obama's policies, are they taking side w a communist ??

 

I don't know enough to know if Krugman is right or not, but I think he might be which scares me.

 

More like Obama's financial moves have been so bad that they've even alienated liberal stooges like Krugman

 

Let me simplify this for all of the unsuspecting Sheeple that still are confused as to matters of finance and economics: Obama is clueless on these topics. Utterly clueless. Not even hard-core liberal shills like Krugman can look past this fact.

There is a reason why the heads of the 15 large banks visited Obama at the White House last Friday -- because Obama is having his message undercut by them publicly at every turn. That's the same reason why Dean, Goolsbee, et al have been appearing on CNBC in the morning -- to counteract the total opposition to Obama's misguided, ideological schemes to impose his social policy instead of fixing the actual realities of our financial situation. In the meeting with the bankers, Obama told them to 'view their compensation through the prism of those who are struggling'. VOMIT. What a wasted opportunity. Talking about compensation instead of the core problems. This just shows that Obama doesn't even have the capability of understanding the core of the problem. This man is dangerous, folks. Very dangerous. He just. does. not. get. it. Which is why the informed on matters of finance reject him.

 

your claim is contradicted by the market.

since O toke office on 22 Jan 2009, the DOW has risen. So far, O's economic policies, with all its warts, has been well-received by Wall Street. His policies have taken away the uncertainties, which Wall Street hates.

 

There's a fundamental difference in the outlook of Krugman, who doesn't think Obama is doing enough to nationalize banks and thinks Wall Street is out of it's mind (and thus should be decommissioned and have it's scraps thrown to the wolves) while right-wing critics of Obama focus on the fact that he isn't doing enough for Wall Street and that he should keep the gouvernment the hell away from the banking system. (lest we fall into socialist doom, a la Reagen nationalizing small banks. Of course, Obama is a commie and Reagen is Mr.Capitalism, so all bets are off on that :/)

I'm fine with people using Krugman's arguments to attack Obama; he's perfectly right on some points. However, it never ceases to amaze me how the very people he upholds as the ones holding America back, the investors and right-wing conservatives who still want to hold onto a dying financial system with ideas of lowered taxes and catering to Wall Street bosses...those same people are using his arguments just because they attack the administration. Shows you what they truly are; men and women of no principle who merely cling to anything credible that attacks Obama.

 

tj's squealing amuses me to no end.

I'm glad that Obama's opposition from the left is receiving so much attention. Krugman's critique pushes Obama's policies in the right direction.

 

Your response is incredibly ignorant. The market plummeted after Obama's election, as the market anticipated the negative impact that Obama would, and has, had. You are correct, however about how the market hates uncertainty -- a fact that made the Obama/Geithner botching of the unveiling of the bank plan that much more difficult to stomach.

Oh, and nice freudian slip on the 'toke' office whoopsie. Fitting for a former pothead such as Obama.

 

FREUD FROWNS UPON YOUR SHENANIGANS

 

You go, Krugman.

 

rofl...do you even understand what obama did with the public private investment partnership? he basically created a trillion dollar give away to wall street and said fk off to the taxpayer. i've been too lazy to start a thread educating people on this. i hoped there would be some sort of outrage about this plan but clearly people don't give a damn anymore. what's another trillion bucks here and there lol.

 

I agree with you. The plan really sucks for the individual taxpayer.

Still, I'd say that Obama reached a quasi-compromise. I don't like it, but I guess it'll have to do for now; although I would've liked Obama to just say "f off, I'm nationalizing the banks and their assets", the current hysteria about "socialism" made that impossible, so this pretty much was something that fell in the middle.

 

yes i do; do you ?

you need to be educated that it is not a give away;

• risk is shared among taxpayers and the investors, who have to put up the $$$ and risk losing all its investment.

it is not a perfect remedy; what other options are there ?

 

Obama is too much a compromise type. Unfortunately, in this crisis, we need leadership. Failure to take bold steps to overhaul the system is what scares me....

 

Let the banks fail and let people start new banks supported by government loans.

Banking is a business of trust. When trust is permanently damaged, you need new banks

 

ok...tell me how much risk the private investors are taking and how much risk the public investors (aka taxpayers) are taking. it's nowhere close to 50/50.

 

that's the Krugman's school of thought, to have the taxpayers assume all the risks

does the Gov have the expertise / experience operating banks; the closest experience the Gov't has in that arena has been the now-bankrupt Fannie and Freddie Mae

 

Well, most of the capital will still be financed by the people starting the new banks. That's kinda similar to the PPIP Obama is pushing but we will end up with new banks as oppose to old.

 

dude, rather than to fess up that your claim was baseless, ur merely back-pedaling

From This

To this