Krugman: GOP Austerity Causing Unemployment

[Sundial]

This chart shows yearly changes in government spending for goods and services.

As you can see, the numbers crossed over to the negative at the beginning of the year, and have been declining ever since. According to Krugman, the numbers correspond to slower job growth.

If government spending is necessary to sustain the recovery, is it crazy to pursuing cuts in spending now, while unemployment is still about 9%?

 

[DontBeStupid]

If government spending is necessary to sustain the recovery, is it crazy to pursuing cuts in spending now, while unemployment is still about 9%?

Conservatives don't want to believe this, but if the government fires people that means more people unemployed.

Hard to believe, I know.

 

[Oddball]

Looks like ol' ferret face is solidifying his ranking as my #1 favorite science fiction/fantasy writer.

Who knew a $3.5 trillion (non)budget was "austerity"?

 

[Oddball]

If government spending is necessary to sustain the recovery, is it crazy to pursuing cuts in spending now, while unemployment is still about 9%?

Conservatives don't want to believe this, but if the government fires people that means more people unemployed.

Hard to believe, I know.

Where the fuck do you think Big Daddy gets the money to pay those bureaucrats, numbnutz?

 

[WillowTree]

If government spending is necessary to sustain the recovery, is it crazy to pursuing cuts in spending now, while unemployment is still about 9%?

Conservatives don't want to believe this, but if the government fires people that means more people unemployed.

Hard to believe, I know.

Where the fuck do you think Big Daddy gets the money to pay those bureaucrats, numbnutz?

Out of the 50% of us who pay FEDERAL INCOME TAX? maybe? it sure as hell ain't from the other 50% who happen to be leeches.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans know what they are doing....slash spending at all costs and then blame Obama for the resulting job losses

 

[DontBeStupid]

Conservatives don't want to believe this, but if the government fires people that means more people unemployed.

Hard to believe, I know.

Where the fuck do you think Big Daddy gets the money to pay those bureaucrats, numbnutz?

Out of the 50% of us who pay FEDERAL INCOME TAX? maybe? it sure as hell ain't from the other 50% who happen to be leeches.

Actually, I would say they borrow it from China or Canada at historically low interest rates.

 

[bripat9643]

This chart shows yearly changes in government spending for goods and services.

As you can see, the numbers crossed over to the negative at the beginning of the year, and have been declining ever since. According to Krugman, the numbers correspond to slower job growth.

If government spending is necessary to sustain the recovery, is it crazy to pursuing cuts in spending now, while unemployment is still about 9%?

First, the source of your chart isn't clear. Government spending is exploding, so I fail to see how government spending on goods and services could be declining.

Second, the empirical evidence has destroyed the theory that government spending improves the economy several times. Keynesian economics is dead. Only idiots and demagogues continue to espouse it. Which brings us to the third point.

Third, Krugman is a proven moron.

 

[Mustang]

This chart shows yearly changes in government spending for goods and services.

As you can see, the numbers crossed over to the negative at the beginning of the year, and have been declining ever since. According to Krugman, the numbers correspond to slower job growth.

If government spending is necessary to sustain the recovery, is it crazy to pursuing cuts in spending now, while unemployment is still about 9%?

Republican ideological fervor may very well precipitate another recession much like what happened in 1937.

 

[bripat9643]

Conservatives don't want to believe this, but if the government fires people that means more people unemployed.

Hard to believe, I know.

No, that actually means in the long run that more people are employed in real jobs. Putting more parasites on the payroll does not help anyone who produces something of value make a living.

 

[Trajan]

This chart shows yearly changes in government spending for goods and services.

As you can see, the numbers crossed over to the negative at the beginning of the year, and have been declining ever since. According to Krugman, the numbers correspond to slower job growth.

If government spending is necessary to sustain the recovery, is it crazy to pursuing cuts in spending now, while unemployment is still about 9%?

OR the stimulus ran out, ( didn't JUMP START the economy did it now?)the federal gov. is out of the bus. paying state salaries and unemployment for 99ers is running out.....and?


and there is NO recovery, hello.....jesus christ....

 

[DontBeStupid]

First, the source of your chart isn't clear. Government spending is exploding, so I fail to see how government spending on goods and services could be declining.

Second, the empirical evidence has destroyed the theory that government spending improves the economy several times. Keynesian economics is dead. Only idiots and demagogues continue to espouse it. Which brings us to the third point.

Third, Krugman is a proven moron.

First, just because Fox News told you spending was exploding doesn't mean it is. Federal spending went DOWN from 2009 to 2010 and states across the country are cutting back.

Second, there is ZERO "empirical evidence" that disproves Keynesian Economics. In fact, there is the opposite. There are many occasions where it has been proven true. WW2 being the best example.

Third, Krugman has a Nobel Prize. You have your thumb up your ass.

 

[Trajan]

Looks like ol' ferret face is solidifying his ranking as my #1 favorite science fiction/fantasy writer.

Who knew a $3.5 trillion (non)budget was "austerity"?

AND 4 Trillion in debt. ?

 

[DontBeStupid]

Conservatives don't want to believe this, but if the government fires people that means more people unemployed.

Hard to believe, I know.

No, that actually means in the long run that more people are employed in real jobs. Putting more parasites on the payroll does not help anyone who produces something of value make a living.

How long is "in the long run" ?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yea Socialists/Progressives are all out of answers. Krugman is a dunce. Why don't they try 'Austerity' first before declaring it a failure? They spent $16 Trillion more than they took in. That's the opposite of 'Austerity' for God's sake. WTF is wrong with Krugman? Try it first then slam it if it doesn't work. Till then,Krugman and all Socialists/Progressives are full of sheet.

 

[Trajan]

If government spending is necessary to sustain the recovery, is it crazy to pursuing cuts in spending now, while unemployment is still about 9%?

Conservatives don't want to believe this, but if the government fires people that means more people unemployed.

Hard to believe, I know.

no not actually, unless of course 7 trillion in 2.5 years isn't enough spending to you, so what do you suggest? we just continue to write checks on borrowed money to state public employee unions forever? or buy 600 dollar hammers?

 

[bripat9643]

No, that actually means in the long run that more people are employed in real jobs. Putting more parasites on the payroll does not help anyone who produces something of value make a living.

How long is "in the long run" ?

As we've seen, the long run is anything over a year or two.

 

[Oddball]

This chart shows yearly changes in government spending for goods and services.

As you can see, the numbers crossed over to the negative at the beginning of the year, and have been declining ever since. According to Krugman, the numbers correspond to slower job growth.

If government spending is necessary to sustain the recovery, is it crazy to pursuing cuts in spending now, while unemployment is still about 9%?

OR the stimulus ran out, ( didn't JUMP START the economy did it now?)the federal gov. is out of the bus. paying state salaries and unemployment for 99ers is running out.....and?


and there is NO recovery, hello.....jesus christ....

That's just proof that we need to print-n-spend another $trillion!!

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

Just like ACORN, Climate change, etc etc.- Pub Propaganda Machine doesn't deal in facts...Pub Dupes...Luckily, truth will out...

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Krugman just needs to pry his nose from The One's butthole and get some fresh air. He makes no sense. 'Austerity' hasn't even been tried. When or if it's tried and fails,i'll give Krugman some props. But it hasn't been tried so Krugman declaring it a failure at this point really is ludicrous. They've spent $16 Trillion more than they took in. So let me know when 'Austerity' begins.