Why Krugman Is Wrong

Great article, Jonathan. It has been obvious to me that Krugman is anti-Obama. Much as I agree with Krugman on many issues, his stand on health care is wrong, as you illuminate. This talk of fighting the special interests to the exclusion of all else is hollow and will not be effective. Anyone who has served in local government realizes what it takes to build consensus to get things done. John Edwards was happy to go along with the powers that be when he was a senator, only to later repudiate many of the votes he took. Casting himself in the role of angry crusader now is just not believable.

BRAVO JONATHAN.

I guess what I have a problem with, as you correctly noted, that corporate America is bad -- but many Americans work for large corporations and depend upon them for their livelihood. Also to lump all corporate CEO's as "greedy" is both true AND false -- they themselves are incentivized by their boards and stockholders to make money for the corporation, raise the stock price(s), and grow the company. The EMPLOYEES and the STOCKHOLDERS (either of which are you and me) benefit from this. So what is John Edwards missing?

Sir, Paul Krugman is not brilliant. He, like you, is a left wing fanatic, so blinded by his "religion" of liberal politics that he cannot use whatever common sense he may still have. George Bush has not been a "total disaster" as President. Quite the opposite. He has pumped the economy and is successfully keeping the nation safe. History will prove him out, as it did Reagan., While you, Mr. Krugman, your biased publication and your discredited philosophy will thakfully end up in the ash heap of history listening to whatever is left of Air America radio.

Comment: Alter got it right. Even if Edwards were not a phoney, any comprehensive health care reform would need the particpation of all the interests. There are simply too many moving parts. Inevitably the details will get in the way . What sounds great on the campaign trail, will more often than not, end up on the cutting room floor.What the full mooners on the left don't understand, is that good ideas every now and then do come from the drug and insurance industries.

Comment; Alter has got it right. Even if Edwards were not a phoney, there is no way a steam roller approach on health care would work. There are simply too many moving parts. Although Krugman would never admit it, sometime good ideas do come from the drug and insurance companies. With the devil in the details, the practicalities inevitably get in the way of the politically correct..

Paul Krugrman is not a brilliant economist and fine columnist. He is wrong in asserting that George W. Bush is a total disaster as president. He is almost always wrong on his assesment of the economy. His knowledge of history is pathetic, including the history he has personnal experienced. Why would anyone assume that he knows what he is talking about when it comes to Obama or any other candidate.

I think that "gommy gommy" needs to pay more attention to the column itself before focussing on his opinions on the economist at hand. If he had done so, he would not have stated at the end of his comment that Paul Krugman supports Barrack Obama. He also needs to stick to the column and his opinions of it, and to leave out the useless personal jabs at the columnist, i.e. suggesting hair plugs.

Ironically, populists not incredibly popular don't win many elections at the national level. Just ask William Jennings Bryan, Al Smith, Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, George Wallace and George McGovern. An Edwards nomination might be able to break the losing streak due to the favorable conditions for Democrats, but he's not going to become a "popular" president with his policies, especially in the wake of Reaganism. No way in hell.

Paul Krugman is not a brilliant Princeton economist and fine columnist. He is completely wrong in asserting that George W. Bush is a total disaster as president. He is a complete disaster on economic reporting. Why would anyone assume he knows what he is talking about as far as Obama is concerned

Ironically, populists not incredibly popular don't win many elections at the national level. Just ask William Jennings Bryan, Al Smith, Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, George Wallace and George McGovern. An Edwards nomination might be able to break the losing streak due to the favorable conditions for Democrats, but he's not going to become a "popular" president with his policies, especially in the wake of Reaganism. No way in hell.

I whole heartedly disagree. You're kind of health care "reform" will come over our cold, dead, conservative bodies. In other words, you're going to have to beat us into the ground before we give you socialized medicine.

Don't you love it when one idiot starts criticizing another idiot for being an idiot? For one thing, Johnnie, Paul Krugman isn't a "brilliant" anything. Can ANYBODY explain to me when he's been RIGHT about ANYTHING? He's one of those "experts" that are quoted as being "surprised" when 150,000 new jobs are created because he predicted a "downturn. Or when GDP goes way up instead of way down, like he said it would. His "economics" answer to everything is the same as every other pie in the sky liberal... RAISE TAXES. GREATER REGULATIONS. MORE GOV'T. This isn't economics, it's ideology. He's not a "populist". Populist conotates that what he espouses is "POPULAR". Maybe in the Newsweek break room, but not out here in the REAL world. Krugman is a Command Structure economist. And I use the word, "economist", lightly. He believes, as the Soviets did, that it's the State that offers the best way foreward. Not the low-brows out in the hinterlands, who actually DO all the work. This is why he works,-let me re-phrase that-this is why he's AT the New York Times. He's a perfect fit. Just one more broken cog in a broken wheel. Soltzberger, who's running it in to the toilet at break-neck speed. Thomas Freidman, who never saw a foreign policy matter he couldn't be wrong on. And of course, Paulie Krugman. The perfect fit. The three blind mice on a sinking ship. As for Alterboy; I'm sure there's a place for him at the NYT. God knows, he's got all of the qualifications. Oh, and you're not fooling anyone Johnnie. The only reason for this column is because the first idiot-Paulie- is backing Obambi and the other idiot-In dire need of some hair plugs, you-is on HillBillys' payroll. Methinks a sissy boy slap fight is right around the corner. Don't you?

Obama has criticized Clinton for being politically calculating when in fact it is his record that is full of so called 'compromise" over 130 times in Illinois he voted "present" rather than face the political fallout of a yes or no vote. I don't see this as compromise but rather calculated political butt covering and political cowardice. When faced with controversial issues he would rather cover his ass than vote his true beliefs.

It figures that MSNBC's link to a negative Newsweek story on Romney lies about Huckabee is wrong. The correct link is http://www.newsweek.com/id/80949

Well Obama is definitely a man of compromise. He has compromised his integrity and values by voting 'present' over 130 times in Illinois Senate....rather than losing political points in future, he 'compromised' and voted present. While bashing Clinton's vote on Iran, he never even showed up to vote. Now if this is what you mean by compromise than Obama is your guy. I am not going to compromise by voting for Obama!
OObamaObaObama.

I love socialists criticizing socialists about idiotic socialist beliefs. bravo, alter, you fool.