Political Forums

Political Forums (http://www.politicalchat.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.politicalchat.org/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   This Republican Economy (http://www.politicalchat.org/showthread.php?t=4099)

Zeke 06-04-2012 06:18 PM

This Republican Economy
 
I like this (emphasis added): This Republican Economy

The New York Times
June 3, 2012
This Republican Economy
By PAUL KRUGMAN

What should be done about the economy? Republicans claim to have the answer: slash spending and cut taxes. What they hope voters won’t notice is that that’s precisely the policy we’ve been following the past couple of years. Never mind the Democrat in the White House; for all practical purposes, this is already the economic policy of Republican dreams.

So the Republican electoral strategy is, in effect, a gigantic con game: it depends on convincing voters that the bad economy is the result of big-spending policies that President Obama hasn’t followed (in large part because the G.O.P. wouldn’t let him), and that our woes can be cured by pursuing more of the same policies that have already failed.

For some reason, however, neither the press nor Mr. Obama’s political team has done a very good job of exposing the con.

What do I mean by saying that this is already a Republican economy? Look first at total government spending — federal, state and local. Adjusted for population growth and inflation, such spending has recently been falling at a rate not seen since the demobilization that followed the Korean War.

How is that possible? Isn’t Mr. Obama a big spender? Actually, no; there was a brief burst of spending in late 2009 and early 2010 as the stimulus kicked in, but that boost is long behind us. Since then it has been all downhill. Cash-strapped state and local governments have laid off teachers, firefighters and police officers; meanwhile, unemployment benefits have been trailing off even though unemployment remains extremely high.

Over all, the picture for America in 2012 bears a stunning resemblance to the great mistake of 1937, when F.D.R. prematurely slashed spending, sending the U.S. economy — which had actually been recovering fairly fast until that point — into the second leg of the Great Depression. In F.D.R.’s case, however, this was an unforced error, since he had a solidly Democratic Congress. In President Obama’s case, much though not all of the responsibility for the policy wrong turn lies with a completely obstructionist Republican majority in the House.

That same obstructionist House majority effectively blackmailed the president into continuing all the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, so that federal taxes as a share of G.D.P. are near historic lows — much lower, in particular, than at any point during Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

As I said, for all practical purposes this is already a Republican economy.

As an aside, I think it’s worth pointing out that although the economy’s performance has been disappointing, to say the least, none of the disasters Republicans predicted have come to pass. Remember all those assertions that budget deficits would lead to soaring interest rates? Well, U.S. borrowing costs have just hit a record low. And remember those dire warnings about inflation and the “debasement” of the dollar? Well, inflation remains low, and the dollar has been stronger than it was in the Bush years.

Put it this way: Republicans have been warning that we were about to turn into Greece because President Obama was doing too much to boost the economy; Keynesian economists like myself warned that we were, on the contrary, at risk of turning into Japan because he was doing too little. And Japanification it is, except with a level of misery the Japanese never had to endure.

So why don’t voters know any of this?

Part of the answer is that far too much economic reporting is still of the he-said, she-said variety, with dueling quotes from hired guns on either side. But it’s also true that the Obama team has consistently failed to highlight Republican obstruction, perhaps out of a fear of seeming weak. Instead, the president’s advisers keep turning to happy talk, seizing on a few months’ good economic news as proof that their policies are working — and then ending up looking foolish when the numbers turn down again. Remarkably, they’ve made this mistake three times in a row: in 2010, 2011 and now once again.

At this point, however, Mr. Obama and his political team don’t seem to have much choice. They can point with pride to some big economic achievements, above all the successful rescue of the auto industry, which is responsible for a large part of whatever job growth we are managing to get. But they’re not going to be able to sell a narrative of overall economic success. Their best bet, surely, is to do a Harry Truman, to run against the “do-nothing” Republican Congress that has, in reality, blocked proposals — for tax cuts as well as more spending — that would have made 2012 a much better year than it’s turning out to be.

For that, in the end, is the best argument against Republicans’ claims that they can fix the economy. The fact is that we have already seen the Republican economic future — and it doesn’t work.

bobabode 06-04-2012 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeke (Post 105598)
For that, in the end, is the best argument against Republicans’ claims that they can fix the economy. The fact is that we have already seen the Republican economic future — and it doesn’t work.

Unless you are sitting on your Repub fat ass wringing your hands are shouting dire predictions about how the public employees unions are destroying the fabric of American society. :rolleyes:

whell 06-04-2012 06:46 PM

Krugman is a tool, and a national embarrassment.

Zeke 06-04-2012 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell (Post 105603)
Krugman is a tool, and a national embarrassment.

Ad hominem. :D

finnbow 06-04-2012 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell (Post 105603)
Krugman is a tool, and a national embarrassment...

... to the GOP who keeps having Krugman piss in their supply-side Wheaties. If his analyses and insights weren't so consistently correct, his confident style would indeed piss me off.

whell 06-04-2012 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by finnbow (Post 105608)
... to the GOP who keeps having Krugman piss in their supply-side Wheaties. If his analyses and insights weren't so consistently correct, his confident style would indeed piss me off.

What's so supply side about 2 or 3 separate stimulus programs, national health reform, QE1, QE2 and a pending QE3, etc, etc.? As usual, Krugman gets it 100% wrong using 50% of the story.

bobabode 06-04-2012 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell (Post 105611)
What's so supply side about 2 or 3 separate stimulus programs, national health reform, QE1, QE2 and a pending QE3, etc, etc.? As usual, Krugman gets it 100% wrong using 50% of the story.

Schwing and a miss...:rolleyes:

whell 06-04-2012 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobabode (Post 105615)
Schwing and a miss...:rolleyes:

Yup, that would certainly sum up Krugman's piece.

Zeke 06-04-2012 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell (Post 105618)
Yup, that would certainly sum up Krugman's piece.

Only if you don't know what a "strike" is. :rolleyes:

Krugman NAILED it.

bobabode 06-04-2012 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeke (Post 105620)
Only if you don't know what a "strike" is. :rolleyes:

Krugman NAILED it.

Bam that one has left the station and shuffled off to Buffalo.:cool:

JJIII 06-04-2012 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobabode (Post 105623)
shuffled off to Buffalo.:cool:

Dude, you're showing your age! My Daddy used to say that!:D

Rex E. 06-04-2012 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJIII (Post 105625)
Dude, you're showing your age! My Daddy used to say that!:D

Oh, don't worry....he's old & in the way....:p

whell 06-04-2012 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeke (Post 105620)
Only if you don't know what a "strike" is. :rolleyes:

Krugman NAILED it.

You guys can cuddle up with Kruggie and have your love Fest. The fact is that he has to ignore a boatload of reality to write a column like that. But go ahead. Enjoy if It helps you feel better.

icenine 06-04-2012 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell (Post 105631)
You guys can cuddle up with Kruggie and have your love Fest. The fact is that he has to ignore a boatload of reality to write a column like that. But go ahead. Enjoy if It helps you feel better.


You seem unable to refute his arguments with a sort of coherent thesis...your posts seem to be of the "oh your crazy that is bunch of crap" sort of shrug off......Obama may have saved Michigan and Ohio's economy at the very least by bailing out the Big Three. I guess that is a negative for you since your from Michigan....

We are living in your trickle down world buddy, and your friends control the House.....what's wrong not happy?

Oh the crash didn't occur under Bush...and Bush didn't bail out the banks...I see now....

Zeke 06-04-2012 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell (Post 105631)
The fact is that he has to ignore a boatload of reality to write a column like that.

Yeah: that he should have written this a year ago.

Situation rectified.

budgetaudio6 06-04-2012 09:38 PM

icenine...what of the other auto makers?
They didnt take any bail out. In the amount that GM did. I also own a pre bailout GM product...SO i take it with a grain of salt...97 MOC if you should ask...The other auto makers didnt fail...and at the time they werent doing so well either?

d-ray657 06-04-2012 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by budgetaudio6 (Post 105638)
icenine...what of the other auto makers?
They didnt take any bail out. In the amount that GM did. I also own a pre bailout GM product...SO i take it with a grain of salt...97 MOC if you should ask...The other auto makers didnt fail...and at the time they werent doing so well either?

Well, there was Chrysler. :cool:

Regards,

D-Ray

budgetaudio6 06-04-2012 09:44 PM

obama has had over three years to turn this economy around. And the last of the bush tax cuts, bush didnt sign.

Zeke 06-04-2012 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by budgetaudio6 (Post 105640)
obama has had over three years to turn this economy around.

All things considered?

He's done a mighty fine job.

budgetaudio6 06-04-2012 09:57 PM

how much did they take?

budgetaudio6 06-04-2012 09:59 PM

zeke, yeah economy is pretty much down the tubes... I agree with him in succeeding at that! Were Buddeees! HEHE find the humor please. And still know that i disagree! :)

icenine 06-04-2012 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by budgetaudio6 (Post 105638)
icenine...what of the other auto makers?
They didnt take any bail out. In the amount that GM did. I also own a pre bailout GM product...SO i take it with a grain of salt...97 MOC if you should ask...The other auto makers didnt fail...and at the time they werent doing so well either?

FORD did not take the bailout....I guess that is your point. I guess you would have wanted to see GM and Chrysler go under....

icenine 06-04-2012 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by budgetaudio6 (Post 105640)
obama has had over three years to turn this economy around. And the last of the bush tax cuts, bush didnt sign.

You mean the extension of the tax cuts he signed because 1) the House would not let Obama extend the cuts to the middle class and and tax some of the more wealthy at the same time, which would have been more fiscally (tea party ideology right?) responsible thing to do and 2) restoring the pre-Bush cut tax rates would have been just too dampening to the economy at the height of the recession. Pragmatism and a sort of blackmail by the Norquist lap dogs in the Tea Party.

budgetaudio6 06-04-2012 11:20 PM

In no way would i want a Dohc chevy go under. Neither the hemi dodge. Did i hint of it in saying that none of the other auto makers didnt take any kind of money from the govmint? They did to a certain point. And that is with their so calledd tax cuts.

What the rest of us would call deductions. others would call tax cuts...i know it sounds ridicules. But considering what obama considers tax cuts for the oil industiries is actually deductions, and obama says they are tax cuts...business deductions are that deductions consideered legal under US tax code.

bobabode 06-05-2012 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJIII (Post 105625)
Dude, you're showing your age! My Daddy used to say that!:D

I'm getting a little more curmudgeonly every day, John. It just feels right for an old broken down white trash pissed off blue collar worker. Ask Chas he knows the feeling.;) Some days I would just as soon bounce my framing hammer off somebodies noggin as look at 'em.... God forbid some idjit knocks on my door selling something.:eek:I've had Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses call me an asshole. That takes some work, I'll tell ya..:rolleyes: You should see my riff on Grandpa from the Simpsons...

JJIII 06-05-2012 05:33 AM

Youngsters and "people of age" get to say what they really think and that is a wonderful thing!:)

BlueStreak 06-05-2012 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell (Post 105603)
Limbaugh is a tool, and a national embarrassment.

Fixed it for ya.

piece-itpete 06-05-2012 08:14 AM

The Dems controlled the federal government. They continued the economic policies for the most part.

As did the first black president back when he was in office.

Pete

wgrr 06-05-2012 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell (Post 105603)
Krugman is a tool, and a national embarrassment.


It is amazing how the truth scares the right.

If you think Krugman is a "tool and a national embarrassment" then give me some examples why you believe he is. What did he write that you disagree with. What does he say that you consider to be lies or misleading comments. Were you upset when he was part of the Reagan administration.

BlueStreak 06-05-2012 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piece-itpete (Post 105661)
The Dems controlled the federal government. They continued the economic policies for the most part.

As did the first black president back when he was in office.

Pete

Right. The GOP is always an innocent bystander........:rolleyes:

whell 06-05-2012 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by icenine (Post 105646)
You mean the extension of the tax cuts he signed because 1) the House would not let Obama extend the cuts to the middle class and and tax some of the more wealthy at the same time, which would have been more fiscally (tea party ideology right?) responsible thing to do and 2) restoring the pre-Bush cut tax rates would have been just too dampening to the economy at the height of the recession.

Well, at least there's an admission that increasing taxes dampens economic activity. I suppose that's progress.... :rolleyes:

bobabode 06-05-2012 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueStreak (Post 105707)
Right. The GOP is always an innocent bystander........:rolleyes:

Ba-Bam;)

bhunter 06-05-2012 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell (Post 105631)
You guys can cuddle up with Kruggie and have your love Fest. The fact is that he has to ignore a boatload of reality to write a column like that. But go ahead. Enjoy if It helps you feel better.

Krugman was a much better economist before he turned political. Today, he's little more than a spokesperson for the democratic party.

bhunter 06-05-2012 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by icenine (Post 105632)
You seem unable to refute his arguments with a sort of coherent thesis...your posts seem to be of the "oh your crazy that is bunch of crap" sort of shrug off......Obama may have saved Michigan and Ohio's economy at the very least by bailing out the Big Three. I guess that is a negative for you since your from Michigan....

We are living in your trickle down world buddy, and your friends control the House.....what's wrong not happy?

Oh the crash didn't occur under Bush...and Bush didn't bail out the banks...I see now....

IMHO, Krugman loves to redefine meanings and cherry pick to obtain the results that he seeks.

Quote:

On Krugman on Spending

by Don Boudreaux on June 4, 2012

in Budget Issues, Myths and Fallacies, Reality Is Not Optional, Stimulus

Here’s a letter to the New York Times:

Paul Krugman writes that “Adjusted for population growth and inflation, [local, state, and federal government] spending has recently been falling at a rate not seen since the demobilization that followed the Korean War” (“The Republican Economy,” June 4). This claim is highly questionable.
Although he doesn’t specify his meaning of “recently,” he must not have in mind the years since the current downturn began. After all, inflation-adjusted total government spending per capita is five percent higher today than it was in 2008.

Elsewhere in his column, though, Mr. Krugman suggests that he’s thinking back only to 2009. It’s true that such projected spending for 2012 will be down by just under five percent from its 2009 level, but this statistic is largely an artifact of the huge – nearly 11 percent in a single year – spike in such spending that occurred in 2009 over 2008. Compared to the average of such annual spending for the ten-year period 2003-2012, spending in 2012 is higher by 5.6 percent. More significantly, compared to the average of such annual spending for the decade leading up to the downturn (1999-2008), such spending in 2012 is higher by 17 percent.*

Mr. Krugman misleads your readers by asserting that real total government spending today, adjusted for population growth, has been “slashed.”

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
George Mason University


d-ray657 06-05-2012 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhunter (Post 105714)
IMHO, Krugman loves to redefine meanings and cherry pick to obtain the results that he seeks.

So how much of the spending discussed in that letter was the result of unemployment and other benefits necessary as a result of the recession, and not as a result of growth in any governmental agency? How much of the spending occurred despite cutbacks and layoffs of local government employees? If those factors are not taken into account, is not the letter to the editor misleading?

Regards,

D-Ray

Zeke 06-05-2012 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-ray657 (Post 105722)
If those factors are not taken into account, is not the letter to the editor misleading?

Regards,

D-Ray

Without question. :cool:

merrylander 06-06-2012 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell (Post 105709)
Well, at least there's an admission that increasing taxes dampens economic activity. I suppose that's progress.... :rolleyes:

Except that it is pure BS, Clinton raised taxes of the so called "Job creators" and the economy took off like gang busters.:rolleyes:

merrylander 06-06-2012 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhunter (Post 105712)
Krugman was a much better economist before he turned political. Today, he's little more than a spokesperson for the democratic party.

Only because you righties disagree with him.:p

merrylander 06-06-2012 06:58 AM

Meaning that figures don't lie but liars sure can figure?:D


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.