I may be guilty of over-simplification for the sake of brevity, but I don't think I misrepresented his view of the stimulus plan or his views regarding the efficacy of compromise in this situation.

In his 8 Feb. column he states, "Even if the original Obama plan — around $800 billion in stimulus, with a substantial fraction of that total given over to ineffective tax cuts — had been enacted, it wouldn’t have been enough to fill the looming hole in the U.S. economy, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will amount to $2.9 trillion over the next three years" (all now and later emph. mine).

Krugman goes on to add, "Instead, however, he [Pres. Obama] offered a plan that was clearly both too small and too heavily reliant on tax cuts."

So your point re: Krugman and and his objections to tax cuts is taken, but it seems we're both correct in that Krugman thinks that the plans thus have are (1) not large enough and (2) not properly targeted.

In his 12 Feb. column, he states, "The stimulus bill looks helpful but inadequate, especially when combined with a disappointing plan for rescuing the banks," and goes on to state, "...while Mr. Obama got more or less what he asked for, he almost certainly didn’t ask for enough ... while it sounds like a lot of money, [it] isn’t nearly enough to bridge that chasm." He goes on to say, "Officially, the administration insists that the plan is adequate to the economy’s need. But few economists agree."

The best he can say about the current plan is "...the chances that the fiscal stimulus will prove adequate would be higher if it were accompanied by an effective financial rescue, one that would unfreeze the credit markets and get money moving again." In this same column, Krugman criticizes the financial rescue plan as too vague to judge its adequacy.

Now if Bernbart and yourself think that this economic stimulus plan is adequate, then indeed the compromises made thus far are both politically and practically pragmatic. I would disagree, but I would understand Bernbart's views re: compromise and pragmatism on this issue.

I'm only talking Krugman, his views, and the stimulus plan to make a larger point re: the pragmatism of compromise and centrism. These three words - pragmatism, compromise, and centrism - seem to be used by some (such as Bernbart) as totems without referent to the practical results they're supposed to achieve. And this was the point I was trying to make to Bernbart: There's nothing pragmatic about a compromise that prevents you from achieving your goals.

You remember correctly. I ought not have ascribed that view to Krugman. At best, had I the time for further elaboration, I should have explained (and cited) how the sentiment is not uncommon among Keynesian economists and how Krugman probably would agree with the overall sentiment.

From what I've heard/read, Stormtroopers (the white-armored dudes in Episodes 4-6) are draftees while Clonetroopers (the white-armored dudes from Episodes 2-3) are, well, clones who've been genetically engineered and programmed to be killers.

FOr a fun send-up of henchmen, check out the comic "Empowered" (published by Dark Horse) where the heroine's boyfriend - "Thugboy" - is a former henchman who led a gang of henchmen who's graft was ripping off the dim-witted, would-be super-villains who hired them.

Glenn:

Would you mind responding to bluesquishy regarding "outright censorship," presumably the deletion of certain posts and the banning of certain posters?

It's possible that bluesquishy doesn't understand the difference between abusive posts and critical posts. Besides it would be interesting to see the general guidelines articulated by you personally along with a snippet or two of the kind of post that gets deleted or the kind of poster that gets banned.

This would be especially useful because one of the canards the Right likes to throw around is that the Left are just as censorious as they.

~djmagaro

I hear you, re: not feeding trolls, and I think your analogy to vandalism is apt - and I honestly seeking an answer. But whether the intent behind the question is honest or not, I think it's of value to answer the question itself.

As a former teacher, I had plenty of students whose idea of a discussion or debate was shouting and put-downs. They weren't acting in bad faith because they hadn't been taught otherwise (and it was my job to teach them that 'otherwise'). Admittedly, it's more forgivable in a 15 year old than in someone's who's 25 or 55 and who ought to know better. But when I think about the fact that there's a whole generation of adults who have been mis-educated by the right wing movement into thinking that abuse, invective, name calling, etc. are perfectly valid means of persuasion, it seems like it would be in everyone's interest to explain every now and again why certain modes of "debate" are not valid and not persuasive.

There are dishonest actors out there like SR Electro James T. Robot III, and bluesquishy may be one of them, but there are also people out there who are really trying to find the truth and trying to connect with others to make the world a better place, but they don't have the tools to do it. I think it's only fair to give them a chance, even if it means falling into some trolls trap from time to time.

And to be completely truthful, there's a perverse, slow-down-at-the-wreck aspect to my curiosity too. When I see some of the posts Glenn lets stand - the ones that full of homophobic and antisemitic abuse directed directly at him - I wonder about just where Glenn's line is ... and what's on the other side of it.