Krugman slips up, reveals libs' secret playbook

Leftwith, why did you say he slipped up? Neither the article nor the video gave any indication that he slipped up. Seems like he clearly meant to say what he said, and he said it.

Also, there's nothing to indicate anyone else shares Krugman's view, so your characterization of a massive conspiracy makes you sound as crazy as him.
 
chango, the idea behind Krugman's comments reinforce the fact that some people in the political realm are fine to find any excuse necessary to get people to agree to their ideas. Many conservatives suspect this attitude is behind the AGW agenda.
 
I checked the link only to see if this story was real. Perhaps no commentator should be taken less seriously than Paul Krugman - the ultimate pseudo-intellectual on fiscal policy. He thinks the federal government spends too little money. That's like telling a 500 pound man that he's too skinny and should incorporate more pizza and beer into his diet.
 
Krugman believes in demand side economics; the economy is in the doldrums and people are unemployed because not enough money is being spent to keep business humming. A short term solution is to stimulate the economy by spending more. If it is the government doing it, it wont kill us if we don't go on doing it forever.

The classic example of this working is WW II. The government went on a buying and hiring spree unmatched in our history and we finally got out of the depression. With massive deficits to pay for the war. And went on an economic boom that waxed and waned, mostly waxed, for decades. And every time the economy dipped, the government primed the pump with either deficit spending or cheap money.

He is proposing we do the same now with infrastructure and education spending. The bit about aliens was tongue in cheek, just in case anybody missed that.

The alternative being offered by others is to cut government spending radically and that will send us into a deflationary spiral.

Do you prefer being eaten by crocodiles or alligators?
 
Deez: actually, a lot of people are advocating deep spending cuts, mostly on stuff that benefits people with little to start with. See the Ryan Budget or the plan Romney trotted out recently. They don't exactly say where the cuts are going to be made most of the time but are explicit about the necessity of actual cuts.

Looking at the efficacy of tax cuts as a basis of stimulus, I have to say the historical record is mixed. The Kennedy/Johnson tax cuts seemed to provide some stimulus but so did the REagan tax increases. ANd I recall listenting to Rush at the time of the Clinton tax increases and being assured it was the end of civilization (as we know it, anyway); instead we got a nice boom, which did have other contributing factors.

My point is that neither of the proposals being made are cinches. Krugman argues for one, the party out of power argues for another. Flip a coin. I do recall Krugman saying four years ago that Obama's stimulus package was not big enough to actually do anything but slow up the economic collapse.

I do not care for Obama but like W, the options before him have never been very good or apetizing.

I do know that when you have economic hard times and you start cutting the source of demand you have a disaster. I fear deflation more than the inflation that has been promised every day of the year for the last four years.
 
"The libs' secret playbook"

Keep an eye on them ebil libs. It's funny that you condemn fear tactics to stimulate political activity when you are obviously a participant in the same thing yourself.

The "libs" as a highly organized entity forming secret playbooks no doubt to forward their hidden agendas? It's the oldest propaganda trick in the book and you're lapping it up. In-group-out-groupthink.

They are evil! We are good!

If you don't like the guy's ideas, just address the ideas. The other stuff is useless at best and certainly lazy.
 
Then Lib's have to put someone down and call them out like they are a disgrace. You are so predictable. Do you get any talking points from anything other than CBS, ABC, NBC or CNN?
 
Spare me, guys. Whether the aliens thing is tongue in cheek or not, it is exactly what is happening with global warming. I don't necessarily believe global warming began as a hoax, but it eventually became one.

And to those of you writing off Krugman as a crazy man, dismissed by the left, PUH-LEASE! He is a lib icon. He is also one of Obama's lead economic advisors. (yes, I know not in an official capacity)
 
The biggest difference in Infrastructure spending vs. military/space exploration is a couple things:

1.) Infrastructure spending does not lead to White Collar or Long Term jobs, these are typically blue collar that anybody can do and are temporary. Typically, low skilled labor with minimal tax revenue from the labor.

2.) Military and Space Exploration lead to new technologies and White Collar long term jobs. More Permanent and they produce more income which leads to more tax revenue.
 
Why build High Speed RailRoads? The Rail road is going the way of buggy whip. What is Rail good for, transporting goods long distances, it is not an efficient mover of people over long distances.

I want my Jet Pack!!!!!!!
 
People who read Krugman regularly can tell you that if he is one of Obama's advisors it is only in the sense that Krugman advises and Obama disregards.

Before Obama ever took office Krugman was howling from the rooftops that the stimulus package would not be sufficient, would only slow the economic downturn and not turn it around and that it would be very difficult politically to justify a sufficient one after the first didn't work.

He also said trying to make nice with Republicans was a waste of time. Obama wasted a year trying to round up a few Republicans and then lost his majority in the midterms.

Krugman's advice has never been followed. Whether it should have been is another matter.
 
What is so special about military research and investment, though? Why couldn't we set up a domestic technology and research department but instead of a primary focus on weapon development, its primary focus is on solving non-military problems like infrastructure and energy. Some great things like those previously listed have come out of military research, but I think the results has more to do with the amount of investment and a research orientation than military being unique. Nothing is special about weapons development, other than that security provides political impetus for the massive investment.
 
Yea, let's creat another department.

Lib's is short for liberal, you are a liberal, are you not?

I don't consider a lib name calling, it is short for what you are.

When someone calls me a con because I am a conservative, I get it, now let's talk about the names that were used in question...

Geez, how ******* politically correct do I need to be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top