« just like old times | Main | is it ok to give up on a book without finishing it? »

December 13, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

RobH

Clive Crook writes a (superficially compelling) rebuttal here: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/12/charles-krauthammer-is-the-fraud/67867/

Ian Leslie

Interesting, thanks. But he's not rebutting the basic thrust of CK's argument, which is that this deal is better for the president than either side realise.

Hal

Paul Krugman, using an estimate by Mark Zandi, says that the deal will add to growth in 2011 and subtract from growth in 2012, That is, the "good stuff" expires after one year, but the tax cuts for upper incomes last for two years. Because a president's reelection turns on the direction of the economy in the election year, not on the level of economic activity, Obama is actually less likely to get reelected under this deal. I hope Krugman is wrong, but I just don't know. He makes a cogent argument that needs addressing.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/december-2011/

Ian Leslie

Wow, you're right, that's a tough argument. Would like to see any counterpoints to it...

Retro Air Jordans

Our feet are standing in your gates, O Jerusalem.

The comments to this entry are closed.

brain food

american politics

british politics

diversions

my other places

ads