I agree with Krugman’s (new?) stance that we should not be deficit-obsessed, at least "not now." As Brad DeLong points out, under Krugman’s scenario the Bush tax cuts would/will expire, and there will be new revenue. Krugman wants to spend it, Matt Yglesias does too. That would be my position, were I a moderate Democrat. I don’t favor those spending plans for other reasons, but the deficit per se would not scare me off. In that sense, it is easy to defend Krugman’s Op-Ed.
What puzzles me is what happened to the forthcoming fiscal destruction of the United States, given the current (and presumably future) level of the deficit. If Krugman has simply changed his mind, that is fine; after all neither the United States nor the dollar has collapsed. We’ve been getting new evidence every day and it suggests a relative degree of optimism. If Krugman has changed his mind, I would like to know why. Is it because of this evidence, or for some other reason? I don’t require a "Krugman moping in abject defeat and the rest of us cackling I told you so" moment (or do I?), but I genuinely would like to know what is up.