Dot Com
Nullius in verba
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)
Way to go Paul Keep exposing those rw snake oil salesmen who just happen to be, sadly, in republican leadership positions
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
Last edited: