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

[CrusaderFrank]

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....

Keep up on current events, Dear

Debbie Wasserman Schultz | Economy | RealClearPolitics

"We own the economy" -- Democrat National Committee

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Krugman wanted even more Stimulus and directed to plug deficits in state and local governments.

"In practice, it was even worse, because one of the key elements of the plan — aid to state and local governments — was cut back sharply in the Senate. We ended up with only about $600 billion of real stimulus over that two-year period."

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

We need more of that type of Failed Stimulus like the Titanic needed to hit a second iceberg to try to close the hole caused by the first.

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

A deficit is bad as long as it doesn't help global socialism and the end of capitalist pigs everywhere.

Krugman, pfft... proof positive it's politics not functionality that earns a Nobel Prize... as if we hadn't had enough elsewhere.

 

[Seawytch]

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
~Dick Cheney

 

[Big Fitz]

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
~Dick Cheney

Yes, CHeney said that. But as we economic conservatives have oft pointed out, Cheney spun that a little bit.

There are 'good deficits' and 'bad' deficits. A good deficit is one that is entered into that will actuall spur on the private sector to grow and therefore create new tax revenues down the line because of increased investment and economic activity. A tax cut to inspire a new industry investment and growth is one.

A bad debt is one that does not inspire economic growth like welfare or entitlement that do not lead to increases in GDP.

You have good debt and bad debt in your life. So does government. Examples of good debt include, car ownership to get too and from work for it allows you to earn. a home improvement loan because you increase the value of your net worth through upgrading your house. Student debt because you are increasing your skills and ability to earn.

Bad debt would be credit cards to fund you vacation to Vegas. Buying tons of gifts at Christmas. Getting a big screen TV on store credit. The super duper deluxe cable package so you can watch 24 different Skinimax channels. These things do NOT improve your wealth or ability to earn.

But I doubt you get the difference.

 

[Liability]

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
~Dick Cheney

If you care to believe O'Neill's account. But that quote is nothing more than O'Neill's account of what the former VP said.

 

[Trajan]

pearls before swine.

 

[Liability]

Here's an interesting take on how the parties (libs vs. conservatives, not just Dems vs. Republicans) "spin" the issue of red ink over time:

washingtonpost.com: Reagan Policies Gave Green Light to Red Ink

 

[Big Fitz]

pearls before swine.

Abusing pigs does not help the discussion!

 

[Sallow]

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.

Spinning what so fast?

Economies are not stagnant, they are fluid and subject to cycles.

Deficits are generally bad. But they are worse when you have the money to pay them down, and instead give tax breaks.

And during times of economic distress it's ludicrous to cut government spending.

 

[Liability]

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.

Spinning what so fast?

Economies are not stagnant, they are fluid and subject to cycles.

Deficits are generally bad. But they are worse when you have the money to pay them down, and instead give tax breaks.

And during times of economic distress it's ludicrous to cut government spending.

It's amazing how the notion that massively increasing the level of spending money we don't have in an economically "bad" time is considered ludicrous to some people.

While I agree that economies are not stagnant, and I will even agree that it sometimes makes poor sense to ignore an opportunity to pay down a debt (I'll even go so far as to suggest that sometimes, within reasonable limits, going on credit can be a good thing); it is weird -- to the point of kinda cuckoo -- to suggest that cutting spending is "ludicrous" in economically bad times.

When we can least afford to spend money, THAT'S when we must massively spend money?

 

[Sallow]

Krugman wanted even more Stimulus and directed to plug deficits in state and local governments.

"In practice, it was even worse, because one of the key elements of the plan — aid to state and local governments — was cut back sharply in the Senate. We ended up with only about $600 billion of real stimulus over that two-year period."

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

We need more of that type of Failed Stimulus like the Titanic needed to hit a second iceberg to try to close the hole caused by the first.

Krugman was completely right.

The stimulus didn't work as well as it should have because it was to small and half of it was tax cuts..a proven non-stimulating strategy when it comes to the economy.

Governors, both Democratic and Republican, used stimulus money to plug holes in their state deficits. Heck..Rick Perry even bragged about having a "balanced" Budget last year. And that was because he used stimulus money to balance it.

And while that was good for saving state jobs..it didn't really create any..in terms of spending on infrastructure..which by the way..is direly needed. Even in NYC and around the state..the roads are in crummy shape. And by "crummy", I really mean they are crumbling. I recently drove over the George Washington bridge..and I was absolutely shocked about that state of the roads and bridges.

It's nuts. And we have a good reason to fix things as well.

 

[Sallow]

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

Spinning what so fast?

Economies are not stagnant, they are fluid and subject to cycles.

Deficits are generally bad. But they are worse when you have the money to pay them down, and instead give tax breaks.

And during times of economic distress it's ludicrous to cut government spending.

It's amazing how the notion that massively increasing the level of spending money we don't have in an economically "bad" time is considered ludicrous to some people.

While I agree that economies are not stagnant, and I will even agree that it sometimes makes poor sense to ignore an opportunity to pay down a debt (I'll even go so far as to suggest that sometimes, within reasonable limits, going on credit can be a good thing); it is weird -- to the point of kinda cuckoo -- to suggest that cutting spending is "ludicrous" in economically bad times.

When we can least afford to spend money, THAT'S when we must massively spend money?

Really now.

What exactly failed? Did we suddenly have massive crop failures? Was there some catastrophic natural disaster that wiped out a good part of our manufacturing base? Did our natural resources like coal, oil and gas suddenly dry up? Those are the three major ways an economy produces wealth. Grow it. Mine it. Or build it.

None of that failed. What happened was a numbers game. And it's incredible that all that happened was a massive bandage was put up to cover that failure and none of the systemic problems were ever really addressed.

Be that as it may..money..as it stands now..is basically an abstract. We no longer have a gold standard..so the value of the dollar really relies on the American economy. If that fails..then the "money" fails too.

And I can't believe that given the wealth of resources, innovation and perseverance of the American people (The best, most productive and brightest workers in the world )that anyone would want to see America fail.

That's really really hard to believe.

 

[Trajan]

Krugman wanted even more Stimulus and directed to plug deficits in state and local governments.

"In practice, it was even worse, because one of the key elements of the plan — aid to state and local governments — was cut back sharply in the Senate. We ended up with only about $600 billion of real stimulus over that two-year period."

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

We need more of that type of Failed Stimulus like the Titanic needed to hit a second iceberg to try to close the hole caused by the first.

Krugman was completely right.

The stimulus didn't work as well as it should have because it was to small and half of it was tax cuts..a proven non-stimulating strategy when it comes to the economy.

Governors, both Democratic and Republican, used stimulus money to plug holes in their state deficits. Heck..Rick Perry even bragged about having a "balanced" Budget last year. And that was because he used stimulus money to balance it.

And while that was good for saving state jobs..it didn't really create any..in terms of spending on infrastructure..which by the way..is direly needed. Even in NYC and around the state..the roads are in crummy shape. And by "crummy", I really mean they are crumbling. I recently drove over the George Washington bridge..and I was absolutely shocked about that state of the roads and bridges.

It's nuts. And we have a good reason to fix things as well.

has it occurred to you yet that you own this? and krugmans 600 billion HE SAID was needed in nov 02 was bigger by a third of his calculations, so he had a cushion, you may spin that as you wish.

a proven non-stimulating strategy when it comes to the economy.

really wow...proof please?

 

[Liability]

Spinning what so fast?

Economies are not stagnant, they are fluid and subject to cycles.

Deficits are generally bad. But they are worse when you have the money to pay them down, and instead give tax breaks.

And during times of economic distress it's ludicrous to cut government spending.

It's amazing how the notion that massively increasing the level of spending money we don't have in an economically "bad" time is considered ludicrous to some people.

While I agree that economies are not stagnant, and I will even agree that it sometimes makes poor sense to ignore an opportunity to pay down a debt (I'll even go so far as to suggest that sometimes, within reasonable limits, going on credit can be a good thing); it is weird -- to the point of kinda cuckoo -- to suggest that cutting spending is "ludicrous" in economically bad times.

When we can least afford to spend money, THAT'S when we must massively spend money?

Really now.

What exactly failed? Did we suddenly have massive crop failures? * * * *

* * * *

WTF are you talking about? Do you imagine that economic policies are related to crop failures?

You might imagine you are making some "good" point, but your underlying assumptions are largely unstated and your writing style suffers great lack of clarity as a result.

Try again.

 

[Sallow]

really wow...proof please?

The Bush economy sucked. We lost manufacturing..jobs..just about everything.

But the rich got richer.

 

[Trajan]

really wow...proof please?

The Bush economy sucked. We lost manufacturing..jobs..just about everything.

But the rich got richer.

*sigh*gobbleydgook....

snip-


Wages declined by a penny to $22.99 an hour and the average workweek fell slightly to 34.3 hours. The combined rate for jobless and discouraged workers rose to 16.2%, and six million Americans, or 44.4% of the jobless, have been out of work for more than six months. The percentage of working age Americans with a paycheck fell to 58.2%, which is below the 58.5% at this time a year ago. The economy isn't generating President Obama's vaunted "green jobs," or blue- or white-collar jobs, or any color jobs.

Review & Outlook: The Jobs Double-Dip - WSJ.com

 

[Sallow]

It's amazing how the notion that massively increasing the level of spending money we don't have in an economically "bad" time is considered ludicrous to some people.

While I agree that economies are not stagnant, and I will even agree that it sometimes makes poor sense to ignore an opportunity to pay down a debt (I'll even go so far as to suggest that sometimes, within reasonable limits, going on credit can be a good thing); it is weird -- to the point of kinda cuckoo -- to suggest that cutting spending is "ludicrous" in economically bad times.

When we can least afford to spend money, THAT'S when we must massively spend money?

Really now.

What exactly failed? Did we suddenly have massive crop failures? * * * *

* * * *

WTF are you talking about? Do you imagine that economic policies are related to crop failures?

You might imagine you are making some "good" point, but your underlying assumptions are largely unstated and your writing style suffers great lack of clarity as a result.

Try again.

You cut my post by 90% and fail to address any of it..and I have "writting problems?"

How much more clearer do you want it?

Real wealth is produced by agriculture, manufacturing, and mining.

Everything else is numbers games and services.

 

[Trajan]

Really now.

What exactly failed? Did we suddenly have massive crop failures? * * * *

* * * *

WTF are you talking about? Do you imagine that economic policies are related to crop failures?

You might imagine you are making some "good" point, but your underlying assumptions are largely unstated and your writing style suffers great lack of clarity as a result.

Try again.

You cut my post by 90% and fail to address any of it..and I have "writting problems?"

How much more clearer do you want it?

Real wealth is produced by agriculture, manufacturing, and mining.

Everything else is numbers games and services.

this is the second time in 2 days I am reminding you that you made an argument that government drives the economy..are you backing off that now?

 

[Sallow]

WTF are you talking about? Do you imagine that economic policies are related to crop failures?

You might imagine you are making some "good" point, but your underlying assumptions are largely unstated and your writing style suffers great lack of clarity as a result.

Try again.

You cut my post by 90% and fail to address any of it..and I have "writting problems?"

How much more clearer do you want it?

Real wealth is produced by agriculture, manufacturing, and mining.

Everything else is numbers games and services.

this is the second time in 2 days I am reminding you that you made an argument that government drives the economy..are you backing off that now?

Not at all.

The government is a major consumer of private sector goods and services.

I even posted a thread related to that, that turned to crap because none of you guys got it.