Krugman: Deficits are bad, Bad, BAD BAD!!!

[CrusaderFrank]

PROFESSOR PAUL KRUGMAN, PRINCETON ECONOMIST: Well, basically we have a world-class budget deficit not just as in absolute terms of course - it's the biggest budget deficit in the history of the world - but it's a budget deficit that as a share of GDP is right up there. It's comparable to the worst we've ever seen in this country. It's biggest than Argentina in 2001. Which is not cyclical, there's only a little bit that's because the economy is depressed.

11/03/2004

Lateline - 11/03/2004: Krugman calls on Bush to reign in the red

The turn to budget deficits was a direct result of the new, Irving-Kristol inspired political strategy of pushing tax cuts without worrying about the “accounting deficiencies of government.”

September 30, 2009,

Moral decay? Or deregulation? - NYTimes.com

Wrong Way Krugman, off in the Trillions Column but, like Gore, Yasser Arafat and Obama, he has a Noble Prize.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

PROFESSOR PAUL KRUGMAN, PRINCETON ECONOMIST: Well, basically we have a world-class budget deficit not just as in absolute terms of course - it's the biggest budget deficit in the history of the world - but it's a budget deficit that as a share of GDP is right up there. It's comparable to the worst we've ever seen in this country. It's biggest than Argentina in 2001. Which is not cyclical, there's only a little bit that's because the economy is depressed.

11/03/2004

Lateline - 11/03/2004: Krugman calls on Bush to reign in the red

The turn to budget deficits was a direct result of the new, Irving-Kristol inspired political strategy of pushing tax cuts without worrying about the “accounting deficiencies of government.”

September 30, 2009,

Moral decay? Or deregulation? - NYTimes.com

Wrong Way Krugman, off in the Trillions Column but, like Gore and Obama, he has a Noble Prize.

Poor Paul, he's spinning so fast he's gonna pull something.

 

[Zander]

When an "economist" has a leftist political agenda this is what happens:

Deficits are bad if the POTUS is a Republican.
Deficits do not matter if the POTUS is a Democrat because it was the Republican's fault.

Wash, rinse, repeat as often as needed.


Also, turn inside out for Republicans......

Deficits are bad if the POTUS is a Democrat
Deficits do not matter if the POTUS is a Republican because it was the Democrat's fault.

Wash, rinse, repeat as often as needed.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yeah, as an "economist" Krugman is every bit as disingenuous as the ManMade Global Warming "Scientists"

Zander nailed it: Rep Deficits = Bad, Obama Deficits = good

 

[parkinson1963]

Au Contrair

Krugman is a strict Keynesian.

During good times (ie BUSH) you do not run a deficit, you try to run a profit.

In bad times (ie Obama) you run a deficit to help stave off a full depression and to prime the economical pump.

As stated in the Bible, Genesis 41:29

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Au Contrair

Krugman is a strict Keynesian.

During good times (ie BUSH) you do not run a deficit, you try to run a profit.

In bad times (ie Obama) you run a deficit to help stave off a full depression and to prime the economical pump.

As stated in the Bible, Genesis 41:29

And how's that whole pump-priming thingy working out?

 

[Antiderivative]

In bad times (ie Obama) you run a deficit to help stave off a full depression and to prime the economical pump.

The recession ended back in June 2009. By your logic we should be running a surplus, not going trillions dollars into debt.

 

[Trajan]

Krugman is a smart guy, BUT he has allowed his 'liberal conscience' to take over and absorb every bit of objectivity there was. *shrugs*

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

See, under Bush, Krugman actually counted the WARS IN THE BUDGET!! And the stimulus worked great until Scott Brown got in and the A-HOLE Pubs could start the austerity/obstruction/fear mongering thing. It's your GD economy....but it'll be all right STILL after the debt ceiling fight is finally over....GD dismal Pubs and their vulgar dupes....

 

[waltky]

Boehner blinks...

Boehner to seek smaller $2 trillion deal
Jul 9,`11 WASHINGTON (AP) - House Republican budget negotiators have abandoned plans to pursue a massive $4 trillion, 10-year deficit reduction package in the face of stiff GOP opposition to any plan that would increase taxes as part of the deal. House Speaker John Boehner informed President Barack Obama Saturday that a smaller agreement of about $2 trillion was more realistic.

In a statement issued Saturday evening, Boehner said: "Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes." The White House responded that Obama will continue to push to make as much progress on deficit reduction as possible. Boehner's statement came a day before he and seven of the top House and Senate leaders were scheduled to meet at the White House in a negotiating session and lay out their remaining differences.

A deficit reduction deal is crucial to win Republican support for an increase in the nation's debt ceiling. The government's borrowing capacity is currently capped at $14.3 trillion and administration officials say it will go into default without action by Aug. 2. Obama tried to build political support for an ambitious package of spending cuts and new tax revenue that would reduce the debt by $4 trillion over 10 years. But from the moment he proposed it, Republicans said they would reject any tax increases and Democrats objected to spending cuts in some of their most prized benefit programs, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers led by Vice President Joe Biden had already identified, but not signed off on, about $2 trillion in deficit reductions, most accomplished through spending cuts. But after holding a secret meeting with Boehner last weekend, Obama and his top aides said they believed an even bigger figure was attainable if both parties made politically painful, but potentially historic, choices. In the end, the pressure from both sides was pushing against Obama's bigger goal.

"I believe the best approach may be to focus on producing a smaller measure, based on the cuts identified in the Biden-led negotiations, that still meets our call for spending reforms and cuts greater than the amount of any debt limit increase," Boehner said. "The president believes that solving our fiscal problems is an economic imperative. But in order to do that, we cannot ask the middle-class and seniors to bear all the burden of higher costs and budget cuts," said White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer. "We need a balanced approach that asks the very wealthiest and special interests to pay their fair share as well, and we believe the American people agree." Pfeiffer said: "Both parties have made real progress thus far, and to back off now will not only fail to solve our fiscal challenge, it will confirm the cynicism people have about politics in Washington. "

MORE

 

[elvis]

Yeah, as an "economist" Krugman is every bit as disingenuous as the ManMade Global Warming "Scientists"

Zander nailed it: Rep Deficits = Bad, Obama Deficits = good

actually krugman thought the "stimulus" should have been about five times the size it was. he's not happy until a democrat runs up the deficit to 180 percent of gdp.

 

[Annie]

It's different now, all previous parameters are off the table. Obama holds the secreats of salvation. Pray and ye shall live!

 

[Trajan]

Yeah, as an "economist" Krugman is every bit as disingenuous as the ManMade Global Warming "Scientists"

Zander nailed it: Rep Deficits = Bad, Obama Deficits = good

actually krugman thought the "stimulus" should have been about five times the size it was. he's not happy until a democrat runs up the deficit to 180 percent of gdp.

I am sorry but thats not quite right; I have posted his column where in post stim. with his calculations as to what he thought was right szie for a stimulus, he said roughly 600 billion. THEN, oh a year later or so, he posted a 'clarification', he said he was speaking in a round about way and basically back peddled.

 

[elvis]

Yeah, as an "economist" Krugman is every bit as disingenuous as the ManMade Global Warming "Scientists"

Zander nailed it: Rep Deficits = Bad, Obama Deficits = good

actually krugman thought the "stimulus" should have been about five times the size it was. he's not happy until a democrat runs up the deficit to 180 percent of gdp.

I am sorry but thats not quite right; I have posted his column where in post stim. with his calculations as to what he thought was right szie for a stimulus, he said roughly 600 billion. THEN, oh a year later or so, he posted a 'clarification', he said he was speaking in a round about way and basically back peddled.

hasn't he said the stimulus wasn't large enough?

 

[Trajan]

here ya go;


November 10, 2008, 4:38 pm
Stimulus math (wonkish)
snip-

Wait, there’s more. Ben Bernanke can’t push on a string – but he can pull, if necessary. Suppose fiscal policy ends up being too expansionary, so that real GDP “wants” to come in 2 percent above potential. In that case the Fed can tighten a bit, and no harm is done. But if fiscal policy is too contractionary, and real GDP comes in below potential, there’s no potential monetary offset. That means that fiscal policy should take risks in the direction of boldness.

So what kinds of numbers are we talking about? GDP next year will be about $15 trillion, so 1% of GDP is $150 billion. The natural rate of unemployment is, say, 5% — maybe lower. Given Okun’s law, every excess point of unemployment above 5 means a 2% output gap.

Right now, we’re at 6.5% unemployment and a 3% output gap – but those numbers are heading higher fast. Goldman predicts 8.5% unemployment, meaning a 7% output gap. That sounds reasonable to me.

So we need a fiscal stimulus big enough to close a 7% output gap. Remember, if the stimulus is too big, it does much less harm than if it’s too small. What’s the multiplier? Better, we hope, than on the early-2008 package. But you’d be hard pressed to argue for an overall multiplier as high as 2.

When I put all this together, I conclude that the stimulus package should be at least 4% of GDP, or $600 billion.

That’s twice what the unreliable rumor says. So if there’s any truth to the rumor, my advice to the powers that be (or more accurately will be in a couple of months) is to think hard – you really, really don’t want to lowball this.

Stimulus math (wonkish) - NYTimes.com

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

There is ONE party in the WORLD that doesn't believe in global warming...fcs

 

[Trajan]

actually krugman thought the "stimulus" should have been about five times the size it was. he's not happy until a democrat runs up the deficit to 180 percent of gdp.

I am sorry but thats not quite right; I have posted his column where in post stim. with his calculations as to what he thought was right szie for a stimulus, he said roughly 600 billion. THEN, oh a year later or so, he posted a 'clarification', he said he was speaking in a round about way and basically back peddled.

hasn't he said the stimulus wasn't large enough?

oh sure he did later, I am not quibbling that he said it, its WHEN he said it..

 

[elvis]

I am sorry but thats not quite right; I have posted his column where in post stim. with his calculations as to what he thought was right szie for a stimulus, he said roughly 600 billion. THEN, oh a year later or so, he posted a 'clarification', he said he was speaking in a round about way and basically back peddled.

hasn't he said the stimulus wasn't large enough?

oh sure he did later, I am not quibbling that he said it, its WHEN he said it..

I suppose I should have said "thinks" instead of "thought".

 

[Trajan]

hasn't he said the stimulus wasn't large enough?

oh sure he did later, I am not quibbling that he said it, its WHEN he said it..

I suppose I should have said "thinks" instead of "thought".

no problem , I wasn't pulling your tail, as I said krugman is a smart guy, but hes well, a hack.

check this lout;

July 28, 2010, 8:05 am
How Did We Know The Stimulus Was Too Small?

Those of us who say that the stimulus was too small are often accused of after-the-fact rationalization: you said this would work, but now that it hasn’t, you’re just saying it wasn’t big enough. The quick answer to that accusation is that people like me said that the stimulus was too small in advance. But the longer answer is that it’s all in the math: Keynesian analysis provides numbers as well as qualitative predictions, and given reasonable projections of the economy’s path in January 2009, the proposed stimulus just wasn’t big enough.

How Did We Know The Stimulus Was Too Small? - NYTimes.com

like he never wrote the first col. of nov 08. Hack.

 

[Zander]

Krugman is a shill and a bad one at that. Keynes' policies sound good in theory, but history shows that they do not work in practice. That is the problem with many leftist prescriptions.......good intentions, bad results.