Krugman kicks von Mises acolyte while he's down

[Dot Com]

First Ryan (R) put forward his budget that was universally decried/derided by the Catholic church for punishing the Poor while simultaneously showering tax cuts on the Rich.

THEN, the von Mises acolyte ran on the last Repub ticket and lost

Now Krugman calls him out for his rw/psychotic libertarian failings:


Fiscal Flimflam, Revisited
(snip)

As I and others pointed out at the time, when you looked at the substance of what Ryan was proposing, it didn’t at all match up to his supposed deep concern over the deficit. Specifically, in the first decade he proposed savage cuts in aid to the poor, but he also proposed huge tax cuts for the rich — and the tax cuts for the rich were bigger than the aid cuts for the poor, so that the specifics of the plan were actually deficit-increasing, not deficit-reducing.

So how did he claim otherwise? By declaring that he would make his tax cuts deficit-neutral by closing loopholes — but he refused to say anything about which loopholes he would close; and by claiming that he would make huge cuts in discretionary spending, again without specifying what he would cut. So the budget was essentially a con job.

Way to go Paul Keep exposing those rw snake oil salesmen who just happen to be, sadly, in republican leadership positions

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

First Ryan (R) put forward his budget that was universally decried/derided by the Catholic church for punishing the Poor while simultaneously showering tax cuts on the Rich.

THEN, the von Mises acolyte ran on the last Repub ticket and lost

Now Krugman calls him out for his rw/psychotic libertarian failings:


Fiscal Flimflam, Revisited
(snip)

As I and others pointed out at the time, when you looked at the substance of what Ryan was proposing, it didn’t at all match up to his supposed deep concern over the deficit. Specifically, in the first decade he proposed savage cuts in aid to the poor, but he also proposed huge tax cuts for the rich — and the tax cuts for the rich were bigger than the aid cuts for the poor, so that the specifics of the plan were actually deficit-increasing, not deficit-reducing.

So how did he claim otherwise? By declaring that he would make his tax cuts deficit-neutral by closing loopholes — but he refused to say anything about which loopholes he would close; and by claiming that he would make huge cuts in discretionary spending, again without specifying what he would cut. So the budget was essentially a con job.

Way to go Paul Keep exposing those rw snake oil salesmen who just happen to be, sadly, in republican leadership positions

dear, if you have something against conservatism why not tell us exactly what it is or admit you lack the IQ for it.

 

[Kimura]

First Ryan (R) put forward his budget that was universally decried/derided by the Catholic church for punishing the Poor while simultaneously showering tax cuts on the Rich.

THEN, the von Mises acolyte ran on the last Repub ticket and lost

Now Krugman calls him out for his rw/psychotic libertarian failings:


Fiscal Flimflam, Revisited
(snip)

As I and others pointed out at the time, when you looked at the substance of what Ryan was proposing, it didn’t at all match up to his supposed deep concern over the deficit. Specifically, in the first decade he proposed savage cuts in aid to the poor, but he also proposed huge tax cuts for the rich — and the tax cuts for the rich were bigger than the aid cuts for the poor, so that the specifics of the plan were actually deficit-increasing, not deficit-reducing.

So how did he claim otherwise? By declaring that he would make his tax cuts deficit-neutral by closing loopholes — but he refused to say anything about which loopholes he would close; and by claiming that he would make huge cuts in discretionary spending, again without specifying what he would cut. So the budget was essentially a con job.

Way to go Paul Keep exposing those rw snake oil salesmen who just happen to be, sadly, in republican leadership positions

It's really not difficult to point out the multiple problems with the Austrian School. The problem I have is most our self-appointed economic geniuses on the forum have never taken an economics class, unless you count rereading axioms by a dead Austrian sociologist.

And this guy:

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The problem I have is most our self-appointed economic geniuses on the forum have never taken an economics class,

since you have why not tell us if you are liberal or conservative and why?

 

[Kimura]

The problem I have is most our self-appointed economic geniuses on the forum have never taken an economics class,

since you have why not tell us if you are liberal or conservative and why?

I'm neither, not that it should it matter.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The problem I have is most our self-appointed economic geniuses on the forum have never taken an economics class,

since you have why not tell us if you are liberal or conservative and why?

I'm neither, not that it should it matter.

so what are you if anything?

 

[Kimura]

since you have why not tell us if you are liberal or conservative and why?

I'm neither, not that it should it matter.

so what are you if anything?

I'd say I lean progressive/libertarian.

I'm a big fan of the American tradition.

Philosophically, I've been influenced from people as diverse as Plato and Maimonides to Max Weber. I'd even throw Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz and some of the Catholic philosophers into the mix. I'm not a Catholic but I think some of their philosophy, such as the Just War, is pretty sound stuff.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'd say I lean progressive/libertarian.

how is that possible given they are opposites?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'm a big fan of the American tradition.

so then your a big fan of freedom from progressive govt???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Philosophically, I've been influenced from people as diverse as Plato and Maimonides to Max Weber. I'd even throw Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz and some of the Catholic philosophers into the mix even though I'm not even a Christian.

well we've all been influenced by many know and unknown but what matters is where you come out and you see to come out confused

 

[Kimura]

I'm a big fan of the American tradition.

so then your a big fan of freedom from progressive govt???

That's never been part of the American tradition. It's 'We The People', we're the government, that's what many right-wingers don't seem to understand. The US, historically, has always been a center-left country.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The US, historically, has always been a center-left country.

absurd of course given that half our Founders wanted to stick with Articles, and Constitution created govt 1% the size of ours on inflation adjusted per capita basis.

 

[Kimura]

I'd say I lean progressive/libertarian.

how is that possible given they are opposites?

It's possible since politics isn't black or white, it's varying degrees of gray.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'd say I lean progressive/libertarian.

how is that possible given they are opposites?

It's possible since politics isn't black or white, it's varying degrees of gray.

seems to me progressive and libetarian are obvious opposites. Henry Wallace was a progressive lib commie and Milton Friedman was libertarian. Are you beginning to understand?

 

[Kimura]

The US, historically, has always been a center-left country.

absurd of course given that half our Founders wanted to stick with Articles, and Constitution created govt 1% the size of ours on inflation adjusted per capita basis.

The Articles of Confederation were too weak which is why they drafted the Constitution. You need a central government to govern effectively.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The US, historically, has always been a center-left country.

absurd of course given that half our Founders wanted to stick with Articles, and Constitution created govt 1% the size of ours on inflation adjusted per capita basis.

The Articles of Confederation were too weak which is why they drafted a Constitution. You need a central government to govern effectively.

absurd of course given that half our Founders wanted to stick with Articles, and Constitution created govt 1% the size of ours on inflation adjusted per capita basis

 

[Kimura]

how is that possible given they are opposites?

It's possible since politics isn't black or white, it's varying degrees of gray.

seems to me progressive and libetarian are obvious opposites. Henry Wallace was a progressive lib commie and Milton Friedman was libertarian. Are you beginning to understand?

Do you mean the same Milton Friedman that supported a Basic Income Guarantee? You may not want to associate him with little (l) libertarianism.

 

[Kimura]

absurd of course given that half our Founders wanted to stick with Articles, and Constitution created govt 1% the size of ours on inflation adjusted per capita basis.

The Articles of Confederation were too weak which is why they drafted a Constitution. You need a central government to govern effectively.

absurd of course given that half our Founders wanted to stick with Articles, and Constitution created govt 1% the size of ours on inflation adjusted per capita basis

So you're saying we don't need a central government? Why should I care about the size of our government when the country was founded. It was 13 states with a total population of four million people.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's possible since politics isn't black or white, it's varying degrees of gray.

seems to me progressive and libetarian are obvious opposites. Henry Wallace was a progressive lib commie and Milton Friedman was libertarian. Are you beginning to understand?

You mean the same Milton Friedman that supported a Basic Income Guarantee? You may not want associate him with little (l) libertarianism.

dear, he was a huge huge libertarian who wanted to cut taxes all the time and for any reason and so was hated by lib progressives. Are you beginning to understand now? GMI was instead of minimum wage and welfare and did not qualify him as progressive by any means. Do you understand now ?

 

[Kimura]

seems to me progressive and libetarian are obvious opposites. Henry Wallace was a progressive lib commie and Milton Friedman was libertarian. Are you beginning to understand?

You mean the same Milton Friedman that supported a Basic Income Guarantee? You may not want associate him with little (l) libertarianism.

dear, he was a huge huge libertarian who wanted to cut taxes all the time and for any reason and so was hated by lib progressives. Are you beginning to understand now? GMI was instead of minimum wage and welfare and did not qualify him as progressive by any means. Do you understand now ?

I understand perfectly, you're the one that seems perpetually confused. He supported a negative income tax.

And stop referring to people as dear, it comes off as super ghey.