"What's The Rush?"

Mika Brzezinski of the entertainment network MSNBC just asked that question about the economic stimulus plan. These people live in another world. The Beltway "bipartisan" BSers do not get it. At all. Apparently, Paul Krugman was on Morning Joe today. I did not see it so I do not know if he told them:

It’s hard to exaggerate how much economic trouble we’re in. The crisis began with housing, but the implosion of the Bush-era housing bubble has set economic dominoes falling not just in the United States, but around the world. . . . [M]ost economic forecasts warn that in the absence of government action we’re headed for a deep, prolonged slump. . . . The Congressional Budget Office . . . recently warned that “absent a change in fiscal policy ... the shortfall in the nation’s output relative to potential levels will be the largest — in duration and depth — since the Depression of the 1930s.”

(Emphasis supplied.) There is no time for vacuous ignorant Beltway fiddling. The nation's economy is melting. That's the rush Mika.

Speaking for me only

< Where Are We On The Stimulus? | Here's "The Rush," Mika: 600,000 Jobs Lost In January >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    How has it transpired that the (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:48:42 AM EST
    people who deliver the news today are among the least informed, ignorant people?
    I don't think that was true in the 80's or before.. not sure about the 90's.

    Mika has a job and (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by lilybart on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:08:21 AM EST
    most likely a trust fund.

    I am sick of hearing anything from people on TV who have jobs. People with no training or experience in economics have no business having opinions.

    Everybody has the right to opinion... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:00:38 AM EST
    though I agree a lot of these pikers have no business spewing their opinions on television...but they're good for unintentional comedy.

    Yup (none / 0) (#15)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:25:01 AM EST
    the only people who be on tv should not have jobs.  

    I saw Krugman on Morning Joe (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by indy in sc on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:43:39 AM EST
    and he was excellent.  I know he has a real "day job" but I wish he would be a regular participant on this show.  He busted every myth about the current state of play that Joe & Co have been pushing in the last couple of weeks.  If you get a chance to see a replay, I highly recommend it.

    That's one way to put it (2.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Slado on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:55:49 AM EST
    the other is they just yelled at eachother with both mistating facts and figures.

    Bottom line more spending isn't going to save this runaway freight train and Krugman is just preparing his excuse for why it didn't work.  

    The classic liberal line...you didn't spend enough.


    BLS numebrs out 7.8% unemploymnt (none / 0) (#2)
    by jedimom on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:54:47 AM EST
    maybe Mika hasnt seen the BLS numbrs that just broke? El Erian of PIMCO says this is not like any other recession..agree

    stats here

    Obama needs to stop scaring peeps that exacerbates the issue, consumers dont spend when we're scared :0)

    the People need to scare congress (none / 0) (#5)
    by lilybart on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:10:16 AM EST
    Obama has no choice but to scare people at this point so they tell their idiots in congress that we need to stop the dominoes from falling ASAP or the whole thing collapses.

    do the republicans have a clue that they ruined the entire world?


    Wrong (none / 0) (#10)
    by Slado on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:04:24 AM EST
    Republicans can't single handidly bring down the global economy.

    The global economy is over debted.  Progressive leaers, conservative leaders did the same thing.  They rode an economic bubble to huge debt levels (liberals through social welfare spending, republicans through war and tax cuts) but the net result is the same.

    The world has too much outstanding debt and incurring more won't save anything.


    Well (none / 0) (#12)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:07:11 AM EST
    I would prefer Obama to do an FDR routine and combine bold action with the sort of "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" routine that inspires confidence.

    But FDR had the luxury of a bipartisan political consensus for bold action.  Most of his early proposals, far more ambitious than anything we would consider today, passed by acclamation.  Obama, on the other hand, is bitterly opposed by the sort of people who think getting rid of the estate tax would stimulate the economy.  So he has to be honest about the state of the economy in order to muster the political will for action.  No one forced FDR to overcome the idiotic objection that inaction would be the best solution of all.

    I think the Great Depression also teaches us that when you have a deep economic problem, expressions of confidence from the President can only do so much!  So I'm more worried about the action side of the equation than the rhetorical side.


    Problem with FDR comprarrisons (none / 0) (#13)
    by Slado on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:20:10 AM EST
    is we don't live in as simple a world anymore.

    Our economy doesn't stand on it's own.  We borrow money from our neighbors and they have no more to give.  So he can print money but then what?  Inflation etc...

    You are right.  He needs to take bold action and do the right thing I just worry the right thing is not politicaly possible.


    Hm (none / 0) (#14)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:23:47 AM EST
    I don't think it's accurate to say that our international sources of credit are tapped out.  There's still a pretty solid market for our Treasuries out there.

    what happens then, when they see the debt (none / 0) (#19)
    by suzieg on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:38:49 AM EST
    accumulated on our backs, will they think we are still a good risk? Won't adding debt over bad debt make this catastrophe worse?

    It is not (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by CST on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:41:30 AM EST
    In China's best interest to see the American economy fail.

    We buy a lot of their products, we all rely on each other.  If they stop lending us money, we stop buying their stuff.  We sink or swim together in a global economy.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:41:55 AM EST
    In the long run, the concern is legitimate.  In the short term, we are still the best game in town, believe it or not.

    The world economy is very interdependent.  China needs a strong US economy because the American people buy up all that crap they manufacture.  If we need a big loan in order to restart our economy, they really can't afford to say no.


    I don't know who annoys me more... (none / 0) (#3)
    by byteb on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:08:15 AM EST
    Mika or her mental twin Joe Scarborough. They are both truly stoopid.

    Since when did Krugman (none / 0) (#9)
    by Slado on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:01:43 AM EST
    become a shield to guard against all disent?

    BTD, you constantly use Krugman as some sort of know it all that shouldn't be questioned.

    Here someone questions him pretty thouroghly.

    His theory is based on the fact that somehow GW and the US economy hasn't been spending enough money recently and nothing could be farther from the truth.  They haven't been on liberal causes (at least not all of them) but the fact remains we've run up huge deficits, borrowed money we don't have and that is why we are in this mess.

    We've dug way to deep of a whole in debt and Krugman's theory to put it simply is we need to keep digging until we get to the other side and we aren't digging deep enough or fast enough.

    Um (none / 0) (#16)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:41:35 AM EST
    That's not exactly a Krugman Original- its basic Keynesian Economic theory and its the underlying precept of what has saved economy after economy for more than 75 yeears.

    According to people who (none / 0) (#17)
    by Slado on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:54:49 AM EST
    believe in that theory.

    Those that don't would beg to differ.

    I guess if you assume that Keynes theory would work you'd actually have to apply it and the current stimulus doesn't even do that with spending not happening until 2010, 2011 and 2012.


    And you suggest? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:22:05 AM EST
    Please offer a competeing theory- seriously, I'm open to suggestion and I'd be very curious to here a counter-theory that has a better track-record than Keynesianism.

    Do nothing (none / 0) (#22)
    by Slado on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 03:07:07 PM EST
    Honestly that is the best theory.

    The market is reacting to over government action (deficit spending, too many cuts, overspending, encouragement to take on bad debt, Fannie and Freddie) and is reacting.

    The world is out of money.  There is less demand then the infastructure in place to produce product.  Go back to Econ 101.  No demand no more need for supply.  

    The choice is let the painful retraction happen, help those hurt the most and get through this.   The Keynesian solution is to print and borrow money that we don't have.  Where is that money going to come from?  The CBO is now saying it would actually hurt us in the long run.

    So we hurt our economy in the long turn to do what?  Not create jobs in the short term?

    Just becasue something is bad and terrible doesn't mean you ahve to do something.   We need to do nothing and adapt to the economic environment we've created for ourselves.  It will suck, people will be hurt but we will get through it to the other side.   Then we will invent something, discover something or create something that will get it moving again.

    This stimulus and more goverment action (because this won't work) will simply put of the pain and as anyone upside down on their credit card debt will tell you that will result in bigger pain down the road.

    Keynesian phylosophy believes that government economic thoery is somehow diferent then the same priciples that apply to us.  Because the big economy is so complex and so different it can take actions (stimulus, spending) to creat economic activity that will pump more money and demand into the economy.

    This doesn't pass the smell test.  We can't make money out of thin air.  If we do we are either borrowing it from someone that already has it or we are printing it which doesn't create more wealth it simply devalues the money already in circulation.

    The answer is to do nothing.


    No. We are human. (none / 0) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 03:17:20 PM EST
    We are all powerful. Our intellect is unstoppable. We will cure every problem.

    Whatever you say (none / 0) (#25)
    by CST on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 03:21:29 PM EST
    Herbert Hoover...

    btw. what does this even mean??:

    "the world is out of money"

    the market doesn't "react" to things like deficits.  They react to the economic state of the companies in the market.  GAH I don't know why I bother..


    This is what (none / 0) (#26)
    by Slado on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 03:37:59 PM EST
    i mean

    By the way the idea (none / 0) (#23)
    by Slado on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 03:15:05 PM EST
    that Keynesianism has a good track record is very debatable to say the least.

    Socialist View

    Capatalist View


    Mika reminds me of a late nite show host's (none / 0) (#11)
    by vicndabx on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:05:08 AM EST
    laughing sidekick, ala Ed McMahon.