This Republican Economy

[whell]

Originally Posted by icenine

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....

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

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

Ba-Bam

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by whell

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]

Originally Posted by icenine

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.

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]

Originally Posted by bhunter

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]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

If those factors are not taken into account, is not the letter to the editor misleading?

Regards,

D-Ray

Without question.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

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

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

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by bhunter

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.

[merrylander]

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