"In the wake of a devastating financial crisis, President Obama has enacted some modest and obviously needed regulation; he has proposed closing a few outrageous tax loopholes; and he has suggested that Mitt Romney’s history of buying and selling companies, often firing workers and gutting their pensions along the way, doesn’t make him the right man to run America’s economy."
Krugman concludes in his penultimate paragraph:
"Think about where we are right now, in the fifth year of a slump brought on by irresponsible bankers. The bankers themselves have been bailed out, but the rest of the nation continues to suffer terribly, with long-term unemployment still at levels not seen since the Great Depression, with a whole cohort of young Americans graduating into an abysmal job market."
But Krugman could have also ended by observing that we're in the fourth year of a presidency which didn't bring those irresponsible bankers to bay, and whose economic policies have proven ineffectual in reducing unemployment.
Krugman might also have observed the contributions of those nasty financiers to Obama's 2008 campaign.
And perhaps Krugman should also have reminded us of Obama's August 2011 declaration that his re-election will hinge on the state of the economy (see: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-3445_162-20095106.html):
"'It frustrates people, understandably, when you've got an unemployment rate that is still too high, an economy that's not growing fast enough. And for me to argue, 'Look, we've actually made the right decisions, things would have been much worse has we not made those decisions,' that's not that satisfying if you don't have a job right now,' the president said. 'And I understand that, and I expect to be judged a year from now on whether or not things have continued to get better.'"
Well, things have not continued to get better, and now it's indeed time for "Change."
And no mentioning of Obama/Dimon bromance?
ReplyDeleteKrugman doesn't care about Obama's feelings? He bitches all the time that Obama didn't do enough when dems were in power and isn't doing enough now and that's why the economy still sucks for most. And in this opinion piece he's just pointing out that Mitt would undo what little Obama did and risk making things even worse.
ReplyDeleteObama has tried to do what is politically possible in the context of a system that is more subservient to money than to individual votes (including Obama). Regulatory reform and health care reform were both predictably corrupted, but still at the end, so much better than what we could expect from the Repubs who are open shills for wall street and anything that might make them more money. the central question is how to reduce the distorting power of wealthy individuals and corporations in the electoral process, so that politics more resembles the concerns and needs of most people. The alternative is a slow progression to indentured servitude for most people.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with almost everything. I don't think Obama tried anything he should have been, such as universal health care/single payer. Actually, he is predictably a weak, "collaborating" President domestically and a weak, "wrong" President internationally. "Slow progression to indentured servitude" - well, this progression isn't so slow and it progresses so fast thanks to your beloved President, among other things. He is the dangerously wrong President in difficult times.
ReplyDeleteI am not voting.
Frankly, Anonymous, I am sick and tired of manipulative babbling about better evil. I suspect one didn't need to have my education to know in 2007/08 what our "hope/change/unity" "cool" candidate could bring. Just a little bit of knowledge of history, and a little bit of sensitivity to demagoguery. Sadly, this is exactly what Americans don't have.
ReplyDelete