Paul Krugman The Government is Too Frugal Lets Spend More

[red states rule]

This pretty well sums up the difference between liberals and conservatives

Krugamn spouts the nonsense, predicts doom and gloom, and ignores the results of massive government spending while calling for more government spending

Will is civil, logical, and points out all the government spending and the results of that spending, and proves government spending will not solve the problem


<IFRAME height=349 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EuaNJSfLG6U" frameBorder=0 width=560 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[fj1200]

Krugman: Let's double down on stupid.

[red states rule]

Krugman: Let's double down on stupid.

IOW another know-it-all liberal :laugh2:

[KartRacerBoy]

Krugman is right. The first stimulus was too compromised to have much effect. If consumers aren't spending and are wary and saving more than usual, tax cuts don't stimulate the economy very much. Govts role then is to replace that spending to get the economy moving again. The first stimulus also wasn't large enough, and it should've been followed up with another package the next year.

There were tales that the money didn't and some still hasn't gotten spent. That's a structural problem that might be fixed by a multiple year spending program to spread it out to allow local govts to plan their infrastructure programs out over several years.

Supply side economics, my middle-age, hairy ass.

[red states rule]

Krugman is right. The first stimulus was too compromised to have much effect. If consumers aren't spending and are wary and saving more than usual, tax cuts don't stimulate the economy very much. Govts role then is to replace that spending to get the economy moving again. The first stimulus also wasn't large enough, and it should've been followed up with another package the next year.

There were tales that the money didn't and some still hasn't gotten spent. That's a structural problem that might be fixed by a multiple year spending program to spread it out to allow local govts to plan their infrastructure programs out over several years.

Supply side economics, my middle-age, hairy ass.

The stimulus was mostly pork and used to keep government workers on the payroll. It was a total watse of a trillion dollars

Tax cuts do stimulate the economy. Revenue increased when JFK cut taxes

Revenue DOUBLED in Reagan's 8 years and the tax cuts gave the US the greatest expansion of peacetime economic growth. Reagan won re-election in 1984 with 49 states due to his economic policies

and revenue increased after the Bush tax cuts

So we have all this government spending and the GDP is .04% and unemployment is at 9.2%


Governments role in stimulating the econony is too get the hell out of the way and stop increasing the cost of doing business
What part of failure do you not understand?

[KartRacerBoy]

Many things happened in the 1980s to start the economy moving again. The Federal Reserve had a HUGE role. Changes in technology was a big factor. Certainly the Reagan tax cuts had a role, but to attribute it all to Reagan is silly and a little simple.

Please note that under Clinton taxes increased and yet the economy kept growing strongly. This crap is complex with lots of factors involved. Washington politics is a big factor. Keynes didn't just advocate spend, spend, spend for the govt to flatten out the economic cycle. He also advocated paying down the debt in times of economic prosperity. Washington actually manage to do that in the 1990s. Now we have a downturn. It's not the time to cut federal govt spending. The states all have balanced budget requirements, and at they were reducing spending while the feds tried to increase it. I'd bet that the 50 states that reduced spending did so in an total amount that the feds didn't completely offset or barely offset, leaving total state and federal budgets slightly reduced or level.

FJ and I have had this conversation numerous times and he disagrees with me. I disagree with him.

[red states rule]

Many things happened in the 1980s to start the economy moving again. The Federal Reserve had a HUGE role. Changes in technology was a big factor. Certainly the Reagan tax cuts had a role, but to attribute it all to Reagan is silly and a little simple.

Please note that under Clinton taxes increased and yet the economy kept growing strongly. This crap is complex with lots of factors involved. Washington politics is a big factor. Keynes didn't just advocate spend, spend, spend for the govt to flatten out the economic cycle. He also advocated paying down the debt in times of economic prosperity. Washington actually manage to do that in the 1990s. Now we have a downturn. It's not the time to cut federal govt spending. The states all have balanced budget requirements, and at they were reducing spending while the feds tried to increase it. I'd bet that the 50 states that reduced spending did so in an total amount that the feds didn't completely offset or barely offset, leaving total state and federal budgets slightly reduced or level.

FJ and I have had this conversation numerous times and he disagrees with me. I disagree with him.


Reagan cut to top tax rate from 70% to 28% and unleashed record peace time economic growth

Clinton caved to the Republican Congress and reformed some entitlements after his defeat in the 1994 midterms

The downturn has never stopped since Obama took office - it has only speeded up due to his policies. What you are ignoring with Obama is we have had FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS in spending and the economy keeps tanking. Why? Fear.

Companies are not hiring do to Obamacare and the taxes included in the bill. Also the Bush tax cuts are set to expire at the end of 2011. Which is a double tax increase

States got the "stimulus" money and now it has run out. Like many people said, now they have to cut the jobs since they temp revenue is gone

If Obama had any common sense he would push for across the board tax cuts; a cut in the capital gains and corproate tax rate; and repeal Obamacare

That would end the fears the business world has, and the hiring would start. You would then have more people paying taxes and a lower rate - IOW more revenue

You would have investors taking risk and companies investing in growth since they would keep more of the profit they earn

But that makes to much sense for tax and spend libs to grasp

[fj1200]

Krugman is right. The first stimulus was too compromised to have much effect. If consumers aren't spending and are wary and saving more than usual, tax cuts don't stimulate the economy very much. Govts role then is to replace that spending to get the economy moving again. The first stimulus also wasn't large enough, and it should've been followed up with another package the next year.

There were tales that the money didn't and some still hasn't gotten spent. That's a structural problem that might be fixed by a multiple year spending program to spread it out to allow local govts to plan their infrastructure programs out over several years.

He's wrong, they wouldn't have the sense to do it right anyway. You correctly toss out the theory behind it but the reality is it doesn't work. SS is not about tossing a couple of bucks to the taxpayers because that has been proven not to work. We've had at least two rebates, one Bush, one BO iirc, and both did zero to stimulate the economy. SS is about lowering the marginal tax rates to spur business investment.


Supply side economics, my middle-age, hairy ass.

Supply side RULES! Works every time it's tried.


Many things happened in the 1980s to start the economy moving again. The Federal Reserve had a HUGE role. Changes in technology was a big factor. Certainly the Reagan tax cuts had a role, but to attribute it all to Reagan is silly and a little simple.

If you'll remember the Fed "help" involved jacking interest rates and it's debatable what help it would have given with the failures that the QEs have brought. Don't forget that deregulation was already underway when the tax cuts really kicked in.


Please note that under Clinton taxes increased and yet the economy kept growing strongly. This crap is complex with lots of factors involved. Washington politics is a big factor. Keynes didn't just advocate spend, spend, spend for the govt to flatten out the economic cycle. He also advocated paying down the debt in times of economic prosperity. Washington actually manage to do that in the 1990s. Now we have a downturn. It's not the time to cut federal govt spending. The states all have balanced budget requirements, and at they were reducing spending while the feds tried to increase it. I'd bet that the 50 states that reduced spending did so in an total amount that the feds didn't completely offset or barely offset, leaving total state and federal budgets slightly reduced or level.

We can debate the timing of the Clinton income tax increases and economic growth but don't dismiss the Cap Gain cuts that really boosted the economy, and Federal revenues when those kicked in in '97. The big issue with the debt "paydown" was holding down the spending growth rates which Clinton did NOT control, of course Federal revenues exceeded the historical average during the late '90s which obviously helped.


FJ and I have had this conversation numerous times and he disagrees with me. I disagree with him.

But I win. :laugh: j/k...

[red states rule]

Looks like Kart went over the hill :laugh2:

[KartRacerBoy]

Looks like Kart went over the hill :laugh2:

No. I just know who to have a debate with. You don't debate. You just declare yourself the winner. It's really kind of babyish.

No fj is worth debating on these things. We can argue, disagree, make jokes, and still be civil. You, as I've discovered, not so much.

[red states rule]

No. I just know who to have a debate with. You don't debate. You just declare yourself the winner. It's really kind of babyish.

No fj is worth debating on these things. We can argue, disagree, make jokes, and still be civil. You, as I've discovered, not so much.

The nerve of me posting all those pesky facts in post #7 to counter what you posted. Very uncivil of me :laugh2:

[KartRacerBoy]

The nerve of me posting all those pesky facts in post #7 to counter what you posted. Very uncivil of me :laugh2:

It was a nervy as me posting facts in post 6 that you failed to counter. :rolleyes:

[red states rule]

It was a nervy as me posting facts in post 6 that you failed to counter. :rolleyes:

Trouble reading English? I responded to your post and ever since you have avoided doing likewise. But that is your choice

[KartRacerBoy]

Trouble reading English? I responded to your post and ever since you have avoided doing likewise. But that is your choice

If I had thought your "response" was worth responding to, I would think about responding. fj's post is much more intelligent (despite his JT/Vimy sentence by sentence response) so I will respond to that. But I've got stuff to do and I fit this crap in when I can. Some response take more time. Sorry about those realities.

[red states rule]

If I had thought your "response" was worth responding to, I would think about responding. fj's post is much more intelligent (despite his JT/Vimy sentence by sentence response) so I will respond to that. But I've got stuff to do and I fit this crap in when I can. Some response take more time. Sorry about those realities.

I learned early when a liberal can't counter facts - they say it is not worth responding to. To bad you can't defend the Obama economy and how he put us into this mess

[KartRacerBoy]

I learned early when a liberal can't counter facts - they say it is not worth responding to. To bad you can't defend the Obama economy and how he put us into this mess

It's nice when the mentally impaired think they've learned something. :clap:

[fj1200]

(despite his JT/Vimy sentence by sentence response)

I'm hurt, and I did multi-quote two of your posts. :slap:

:laugh:

[KartRacerBoy]

I'm hurt, and I did multi-quote two of your posts. :slap:

:laugh:

You knew in your soul what you did was inherently evil, gandalf. The one piece of wisdom this site has is that single sentence parsing must be relegated to the netherworld of JT/Vimy.

And tomorrow morning when my wife has once again denied me morning sex with that sexy sneer (when she doesn't dye her hair it reminds me of you), I will respond substantively (well, what passes for it in our world). Depending on my hangover.

[fj1200]

You knew in your soul what you did was inherently evil, gandalf. The one piece of wisdom this site has is that single sentence parsing must be relegated to the netherworld of JT/Vimy.

And tomorrow morning when my wife has once again denied me morning sex with that sexy sneer (when she doesn't dye her hair it reminds me of you), I will respond substantively (well, what passes for it in our world). Depending on my hangover.

I don't "parse sentences," I respond to paragraphs. [He says with a flip of his luscious graying hair.]

[red states rule]

Now CNN Money is demanding more "stimulus" to get the economy moving. I guess they forgot we already had a trillion dollar stimulus and the last GDP number was .04%.






While the prevailing argument on Capitol Hill right now is not whether to cut federal spending but rather what programs to cut, CNNMoney is fretting over the very concept of spending cuts. You read that right, while both political parties hash out spending cuts to chip away at the growing deficit, CNN is arguing for more government spending to stimulate the economy. Apparently, President Obama's economic policies weren't carried far enough.

"If the <NOBR>debt (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#)</NOBR> ceiling goes up, government spending is most likely going down. And with the economy grinding to a halt, the timing couldn't be worse," CNNMoney's Charles Riley begins his column.

Riley argues that the mainstream economic analysis points to the need for further spending to <NOBR>jumpstart (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#)</NOBR> a flagging U.S. economy. He then quotes Chad Stone from the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who argues for "additional monetary and fiscal stimulus" to aid the current economy.

Riley closes out his piece quoting none other than President Obama, defending "federal support for states" of his stimulus bill.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2011/08/01/cnnmoney-ignore-debt-present-more-govt-spending-needed-boost-economy#ixzz1Tr7eik8L





and

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/31/news/economy/spending_cuts/index.htm?iid=HP_Highlight