Just remember Brad Delong’s two simple rules for dealing with Krugman:

1.) Krugman is always right.

2.) If in doubt, consult Rule #1

They none of them know ‘too hard’. Too hard is losing Beckham without any warning.

Everything else is just more complicated than they’d like things to be.

She’s a deep grrl, that Rose:

But comprehensive solutions tend to produce comprehensive resistance.

Geez, I wasn’t looking for a comprehensive hardon. That point in the evening, Ida settled for a half assed one. But noooo, Rose is a deep one. Don’t think I can rely on Harold’s withered, pitiful junk, either.

Signed,

Chunky Reese Witherspoon

“”comprehensive hardon”"

And Boobies, too!

Also.

Krugman’s argument that we should stay with the shitburger because we already know how it tastes is merely sad. Douthat’s casual declaration that America is a welfare state shows that the lad at least has the brains to know which way the wind blows. I look for the words “common sense” to start cropping up in his drivel.

Eh, you’re being a little hard on the Krugmeister. “That’s not a ringing endorsement, but it’s the best I can do” isn’t much for someone that he professes to “deeply admire” and who hired him for his current job.

Angry Ewok, on the other hand, forgets or refuses to acknowledge that Clinton was actually successful in reducing the size of the federal government, which is also the last time (maybe the last time ever) that said gummint ran a surplus. And Junior, of course, is just cementing his position as the clown prince of the midterm elections.

Can’t say I agree with everything Krugman says here (HalloweenJack makes some good points) but throwing him in with these two jerkoffs is a little rough. How in the fucking world did Ross the Limp ever get this column? His tag line should be “I know absolutely nothing about everything…and I intend to write about it.”

As for as Ford goes, why no ability to make comments on his op-ed at the Times? Or, are there 634 awaiting moderation that all say “Go back to fucking Tennessee you fucking carpetbagging member of the lucky sperm club?”

I can see Krugman’s point; the subtitle to his column should be “it could be worse, and if someone else is going to replace Bernacke, the Senate will guarantee at least a 200% increase in suckitude, perhaps even 300%“. Isn’t it interesting that the main impediment to having anything nice in this country is the goddamn Senate?

As for Ross the Limp: I don’t read middle-aged emo-nerds, period.

As for Harold Ford: sideways with a rake, and twice on Sunday.

But isn’t that the same lame shit we’re served up every time someone on the far fringey left has the audacity to challenge the dogma of mainstream liberalism? You know, to quote Krugman:

“But — and here comes my defense of [insert shitty Obama non-policy or about-face here] — any good alternative for the position would face a bruising fight in the Senate [or rattle the establishment, or threaten the livelihood of liberal bottom-feeders on the Hill]. And choosing a bad alternative would have truly dire consequences for the economy [or Obama's re-election, or our trade with Indonesia, or the spirit of bipartisanship or the weather...].”

Really. Isn’t it about time the administration picked a topic — any topic, took a stance on it, and then fought for it, filibuster and all? I’m just not seeing the value in this weird “sure it sucks and we caved on everything that mattered, but things could be suckier, still, and if we hadn’t caved we might have been confronted with opposition, so we’ll go with teh sucking & caving, ‘kay?” stance as the embodiment of bold political moves as required by dire political straits.

Krugman:
His last para was the most pertinent. Whoever is appointed better realize that we dodged a major bullet, and there is still a lot of work to be done — for the common man.

Ross:
Yeah, we are “all special interests,” but some special interests have MUCH deeper pockets than I do, and have a lot more pull in influencing opinion.

Harold Ford (who the hell is he??): All I had to do was get to the part about cutting taxes when I switched off. Idiot.

______
______)

Ross Douthat’s penis. (magnified 2 X)

So what does he propose doing to create jobs? Nothing. Mr. Bernanke has offered no hint that he feels the need to adopt policies that might bring unemployment down faster. Instead, he has responded to suggestions for further Fed action with boilerplate about “the anchoring of inflation expectations.” It’s harsh but true to say that he’s acting as if it’s Mission Accomplished now that the big banks have been rescued.

From the standpoint of misallocation of resources, expecting an economist to do job placement on a massive scale is like hiring a nuclear physicist to fix your toilets: Yeah, nuclear physics involves knowledge of plumbing to a degree, but a homeowner is probably NOT going to be happy about having the crap in his john disposed of via nuclear fission.

As for the banking issue, Bernanke doesn’t exactly deserve any pats on the back there, either. As a matter of fact, I have some questions I would like Bernanke to respond to. Unfortunately, I cannot yet afford my own corporation in order to avail myself of unbridled FREE SPEECH!!! w/r/t political issues. But here goes:

1. If the average person writes a check, they are obligated to have the money in their account to back it. However, when I go to cash a check, the bank says the money won’t be available for at least another business day. Sometimes two. WHY?

2. State and Federal law require a minimum of 20 days between the time the credit card invoice is sent and the date the payment is due. Payment is usually due on the 22nd of the month. The envelope bears a meter stamp that indicates the letter was posted on the 2nd. But I never get the letter until the 9th or 10th of the month. When I send letters to BIG BANK bitching about this, it only takes them three (3) days to get to the home office in Delaware. Does the mail flow faster from west to east? If so, WHY?

3. Continuing with the mailing issue: The banks say that if we don’t want to incur finance charges, we should all mail our checks at least 5 days before the due date. I dutifully mail my checks, allowing 5 days mailing time. The next month, I see a late fee on my statement. I am livid. I call the 800 customer service number and am patched through to my friendly neighborhood banker–in Bangalore, where I am informed that I incurred a late fee because my payment was received after the due date. “I don’t think so,” I replied. “The postmaster informed me that the average delivery time for a first class letter from our zip code to Wilmington, DE is 3 days. I want to know why it was sitting in your warehouse for 5 days before the check was cancelled.” I am patched through to the next level of bureaucracy in Wilmington, who refuse to answer any questions but who grudgingly agree to remove the late fee “this time.” WHY?

4. My mailbox is filled on at least a quarterly basis with envelopes containing explanations of my rights w/r/t my checking accounts, bank cards, mortgage, etc. These are all printed on toilet paper in six-point typeface. Even if my vision were up to the task, I doubt I would understand what they say, as they appear to be written in a strange dialect of legalese known only banking insiders and grifters. WHY?

5. Our local big banks are always going on about how small businesses are the backbone of the American economy. They offer numerous loan programs, checking accounts, and credit lines specifically for businesses. I don’t know anyone who has benefitted from these programs. However, I know that the same banks have jerked the credit lines for many small businesses without notice. WHY?

6. Finally, If I want to contest the actions of BIG BANK, I have to arbitrate. (It’s one of those clauses on the toilet paper inserts in #4 above.) Furthermore, I have to arbitrate using a panel selected from the “National Arbitration Cartel” which may not necessarily use retired judges–or even lawyers. So, when I plead my case to the brain-dead retired union organizer, the deaf substitute teacher, and the former banking official–whose salaries are all being paid in large part by BIG BANK, am I really getting an opportunity for a fair and impartial hearing?

“Mommy’s alright, Daddy’s alright, they just seem a little weird…” Yeah, I am so shocked that Harold Ford is lobbying for the ultra-rich. That little toad…NY politics was bad enough as it is, why did he have to move up here and make it worse?

But isn’t that the same lame shit we’re served up every time someone on the far fringey left has the audacity to challenge the dogma of mainstream liberalism?

Yes, yes indeed it is. And what has changed since the last time we found ourselves in this spot? Oh, right, the Supremes just gave corporations the right to publically, rather than furtively, buy our electoral process. The tide is certainly about to turn in our favor, any minute now…

Really. Isn’t it about time the administration picked a topic — any topic, took a stance on it, and then fought for it, filibuster and all?

Ya see, this is where I get all cynical, because this is never, ever going to happen; Obama’s made that quite clear and so have the so-called democrats of the Senate.

I’d rather not be so cynical about national politics, honest, but I am not seeing anything to convince me I should be anything but. I wish Obama would stand hard on something and make the rethugs actually filibuster, but how many of us think that will actually happen?

Well, apparently Obama hired Harold Ford to recycle his op-ed into a SOTU…

Apparently he’s read the national mood, and is hoping to win back support by dropping health care and job-creation programs in favor of tax cuts for trucks and moose-burgers.

Ever see a movie trailer that convinced you to see the movie – only to find out that the trailer was the best part of the whole thing? Obama’s campaign was the trailer. The appealing rhetoric seems to have been as good as he got because he has shown himself to be the most tone-deaf president since G.W. Bush. The Fed stands idly by while the banks wreck the economy so Obama appoints one Fedster as his SecTreas and insists that we give the guy who was at the helm when we hit the iceberg another turn (After all, we only hit one iceberg). Then does he take advantage of the fact that everyone was pissed at the banks to get a concrete start toward re-regulating the financial sector? Nope, he launches what everyone knew would be a bitter and protracted fight to reform health care. Great idea, but he mismanages (Or not manages) the fight so that “reform” lays like a beached whale being picked apart by crabs. Now the whale looks to be harpooned by the junior Senator from Massachusetts.
So he’s reverted to dropping his g’s while speaking (Always the sign of a true populist) and promising relief to the middle class. Right. If this works out like his other great plans the Republicans will demand that all National Parks be turned over to Weyerhauser and Georgia Pacific (They’ll get it) in return for each and every taxpayer receiving three one-dollar vouchers good at any Taco Bell.
Don’t help us any more, Mr. President. Please.

Well, in fairness, Evan Bayh (Douchebag-IN) does take a moment’s break from wanking to point out that this whole thing is because “the furthest left elements of the Dem party attempting to impose their will on the rest of the country.”

And he’s got a point: If Obama had refrained from stacking his administration with dirty fucking hippies and just hired some mainstream beltway insiders, then there’d be a golden pony in every driveway shitting gold bricks. Yep, and if those progressive dreamers that he has listened to all along had just stopped insisting on giving money to the banks & Wall Street and had dropped their preposterous demand that big pharma and the insurance business be allowed to dictate health care reform, we’d have been coasting along by now. It’s. Always. Their. Fault.

There isn’t an elected Democrat who’s even a millimeter to the left of Richard M. Nixon. Both parties have decided to placate the Ebola virus that is American Capitalism in hopes that it just kills the rest of us rather than them.

From the standpoint of misallocation of resources, expecting an economist to do job placement on a massive scale is like hiring a nuclear physicist to fix your toilets

Um, no. Full employment (i.e., an unemployment rate of 5% or less) is part of the Fed’s mandate:

http://ideas.repec.org/p/lev/levppb/60.html

Krugman’s point is that Bernanke is overly concerned with keeping inflation down, which is why he refuses to lower interest rates any further, to the detriment of job creation. Like the deficit hawks, Bernanke is concerned about something that would be a problem in normal times, but these are not normal times, and normal measures will not get us out of the mess that Douthat’s philosophical heroes have gotten us into.

…and Obama’s fallen for it too, proposing spending freezes and limits since the blue dogs are suddenly so worried about the deficit. The timing is remarkably like the spending cuts that caused the second half of the Great Depression; I think we’ll just have to relearn this historical lesson, but it won’t be as farce this time – just the same goddamn lesson over again like the first one never happened.

Krugman’s point is that Bernanke is overly concerned with keeping inflation down, which is why he refuses to lower interest rates any further, to the detriment of job creation.

I certainly agree that the Fed is overly concerned with inflation, and has been pretty much forever. However, given that the effective interest rate currently charged by the Fed is 0%, I think that might be the more important factor in not lowering the interest rate — i.e., it just cannot be done. To the best of my knowledge, there is no such thing as a negative interest rate.

Why not? Since they’ve screwed up so royally. If nothing else, it would be very interesting…

Yeah. Make the banks pay us for a change!