Still Clueless In Krugmanland...

Obama lamprey Paul Krugman surveys banking reform and finds the landscape vaguely familiar:

So here’s the situation. We’ve been through the second-worst financial crisis in the history of the world, and we’ve barely begun to recover: 29 million Americans either can’t find jobs or can’t find full-time work. Yet all momentum for serious banking reform has been lost. The question now seems to be whether we’ll get a watered-down bill or no bill at all. And I hate to say this, but the second option is starting to look preferable.

Well, that's damn lucky for Paul, because no bill at all is an Obama Administration specialty.

And the cause of the momentum lackage? Weak leadership from Barack Obama? Nope. Weak leadership from Tim Geithner? Nah. Reluctance of Congressional Democrats to cross powerful vested interests? Hardly. Then what on Earth could it be?

The problem, not too surprisingly, lies in the Senate, and mainly, though not entirely, with Republicans. The House has already passed a fairly strong reform bill, more or less along the lines proposed by the Obama administration, and the Senate could probably do the same if it operated on the principle of majority rule. But it doesn’t — and when you combine near-universal Republican opposition to serious reform with the wavering of some Democrats, prospects look bleak.

Of course! It's the dreaded...

Flawed Constitution and Republican Obstructionism and/or Nihilism Thingy

Anyway, Krugman stamps his little feet and demands that a line be drawn in the sand. Or something:

There are times when even a highly imperfect reform is much better than nothing; this is very much the case for health care. But financial reform is different. An imperfect health care bill can be revised in the light of experience, and if Democrats pass the current plan there will be steady pressure to make it better. A weak financial reform, by contrast, wouldn’t be tested until the next big crisis. All it would do is create a false sense of security and a fig leaf for politicians opposed to any serious action — then fail in the clinch.

Boy, much like Kamikaze Nan, Paul Krugman knows how to sell health care reform, eh? Beyond that, Paul's got an interesting set of standards, don't you think? Health care reform can be fucked up because, well, people are people and if you lose some you can always make some more. But banking reform, that's different. Now we're talking money. That's the sort of talk that warms my accountant's soul...

So, as noted, Krugman draws his line. Then he offers this bit of advice:

In summary, then, it’s time to draw a line in the sand. No reform, coupled with a campaign to name and shame the people responsible, is better than a cosmetic reform that just covers up failure to act.

Leave it Paul to overlook the obvious: Just who it is that is going to be named and shamed.

Comments

[Mike C.]

You're going to make your ulcer worse reading that crap.

[Dennis the Peasant]

That's OK. Obamacare will cure it.

[richard mcenroe]

"There are times when even a highly imperfect reform is much better than nothing; this is very much the case for health care."

Yeah,like that time I tried to seat my cylinder gaskets with Elmer's Glue-All...

[timb]

the filibuster is in the Constitution?

You must own a different copy than America uses, Dennis, you know, to go with your different version of history where Republicans did not vow to stop healthcare reform and Wall Street banks did not meet with Republican leaders to figure out how to stop regulation AFTER the House passed a what Krugman referred to as "a strong bill."

I understand right wing folks like their facts to tailor their world view, but, seeing as how we are a world of crap created by fraudulent financial instruments and we are emerging from the crisis with no ability to regulate the very instruments which almost destroyed the economy, maybe you'd be on board with the rich nobility not screwing the peasants again. Then again, there were always some peasants who spent their lives bowing and ingratiating themselves and yelling "could be worse! We could be serfs. Our kind never had it so good."

Count me in with the other group who would like to see the people who mugged the Treasury and paid themselves million dollar bonuses have some regulations to stop them from doing it again.

The again, that means I'm interested in governing the country, whereas the Party of No is interested about winning elections. Nice friends you got there

[Dennis the Peasant]

Tim-

Thanks for those completely original talking points. Also thanks for avoiding mention of how many Congressional Democrats had a hand in derailing Krugman's "strong bill".

I have a copy of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Version of the Constitution: The Karl Rove Edition. It clearly states that there is a filibuster available to Republicans, and Republicans only.

[timb]

Yes, Dennis, water being wet is a "talking point" and Republicans breaking their own record (from the last Congress) is just a talking point, too!

Cool, I love this game where truth is dismissed as a "talking point," because the host doesn't like it! Let's see, what else is a talking point? "Majority rules?" Oh, and I'm sure you remember "just an up or down vote" from 2005 when you were anti-filibuster?

As an aside, it is hilarious what people think is in the Constitution. I liked the snark associated with "Karl Rove Edition." Does it mention that bills of attainder are okay to use on ACORN....after you've fired all the USDA's who won't do what you say.

Since you opened the comedy drawer, check out this Onion slice

I especially like the shot at the liberal daughter. The document ain't that long, but no one seems to read the dang thing.

Anyway, go back to your Tea Party, Dennis, and I'll return to my Wiccan meeting