Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Basically Paul Ryan's proposed idea will give the rich more tax cuts that will amount to over 4.3 trillion in the next decade. In return his proposed cuts will save about 1.7 trillion. So in the long run the supposed "budget hawk" will increase the deficit by about 2.5 trillion all well doing everything in his power to tax from the middle class and give to the rich.
I don't see with the raw facts how anyone has the heart or brains to support such a person? Catholic my ass, this man is nothing more than a political criminal and anyone who supports such actions is clearly out for themselves.
Ummm....
"Slams Paul Ryan with Facts?"
...in a piece in the OPINION section. Maybe they are facts, but twisted to support one point of view on economics.
Krugman clearly has a strong political agenda and his economics stand behind that agenda, not to say he is right or wrong, but he is CLEARLY biased, so this "slamming with facts" is probably a bit of a stretch in an opinion piece.
Krugman has no credibility. He is an idot. He has bee so discredited as to be tototally irrelevant. In short, he is a joke.
Instead of taking a cheap, lazy shot by calling him an idiot, spend a little time dissecting his points and support your views with evidence if you feel you are correct.
You obviously don't like them but you don't understand them. You see, to them the ideology is not a failed ideolgy at all in fact it has been wildly successful. All ideology has has a point or a goal behind it and that is what must be recognized in order to evaluate the relative success of failure to the people promoting any particular ideas.
The right wing ideology has succeeded in that it has taken a much larger share of the national wealth for a steadly diminishing number of people. It has greatly strengthened the "Economic royality" and the elite of the nation. It's a particularly selfish ideology and very shortsighted also. It's much like the boy who killed the golden goose type thinking. However, unlike the boy who killed the goose and was then out of geese these rightwingers have the economies of the entire third world to plunder once they have taken the US economy down past the point of no return.
History is full of examples of these traitors to their own country and they have destroyed quite a few of them in their insatiable thirst for more and more money for themselves.
The most glaring examples are the European countries who's economic royalists actually sided with the Nazis against their own social democratic elected governments. In France these people were called "The two hundred families" They controlled the largest part of the Frtence economy. They had two slogans they liked to use. "Better Hitler than Blum". Blum was the head of their government and had two striles against him from the economic royalists view. He was a social democrat and he was a Jew. Well, they got their Hitler and it didn't work out so well for them.
These were the same people you have pushing the same ideas as you have in the GOP today. In France of the 30's these people called the Republic of France, "The ****" and that is exactly what they thought about their own country. The GOPers think and feel the exact same about the USA of reality and are in effect the biggest traitors imaginable. At least these French right wingers had the balls to come right out with it but I find the GOPers in the USA to be a particulary spineless bunch of cowards. Every single thing they think is hidden. They will not ever state what the goals of their movement are. That only makes sence though because if they did only the 1% or less that they really represent would ever vote for them.
The basic difference between the Liberals and the GOP is the Liberals live in some sort of economic dream land and the GOP lives in the economic real world. You can't have a great salary if you don't have the skills demanded by the market. The so called "wealth gap" is the difference between people that don't have the talent, skills, education and determination to get ahead where the people that do have these skills are getting ahead and doing well.
We tried the Liberal "economic fix" with the Great Society programs and they have produced nothing except more poverty. So, blame the GOP for the failed Liberal economic "fixes" if you choose, but Liberals offer nothing new and only cling to their failed ideas which have not and will not work.
It's interesting how this guy has the reputation of being a "Policy wonk". If you do some serious research on the things he has supported, what he has voted for or against and his public pronouncements you quickly see the guy is NO POLICY WONK of any kind at all. He's just a partisan hack toeing the party line. His degree of Hypocracy is staggering. He's against so many things he has gladly supported when it comes to HIS district and his chances of re election. He's actually not one single bit more on the ball than the last VP pick and let me tell you, she isn't the sharpest tool in the drawer. His service in the house has accomplished nothing at all of any import. After he and Mitt are rejected in November I hope he just fades into obscurity. I doubt it though. He will be on dancing with the stars or some such other garbage.
I get the feeling Ryan is the pretty face that the 1% want on the ticket. Both Ryan and Romney are good looking, and that is handy, because they are both prostitutes.
The basic difference between the Liberals and the GOP is the Liberals live in some sort of economic dream land and the GOP lives in the economic real world. You can't have a great salary if you don't have the skills demanded by the market. The so called "wealth gap" is the difference between people that don't have the talent, skills, education and determination to get ahead where the people that do have these skills are getting ahead and doing well.
We tried the Liberal "economic fix" with the Great Society programs and they have produced nothing except more poverty. So, blame the GOP for the failed Liberal economic "fixes" if you choose, but Liberals offer nothing new and only cling to their failed ideas which have not and will not work.
I see it exactly opposite. I see liberals that live in the real economic world. The GOP lives in a fantasy world where lowering taxes on the rich raises more tax revenue and cutting spending magically expands GDP. There is no empirical evidence to support this GOP view. None.
I may also add that the current GOP rejects the Keynesian model, which has held up quite well, and previous conservatives accepted? Why? Merely because the model goes against the current GOP's agenda of rejecting anything Obama.
I see it exactly opposite. I see liberals that live in the real economic world. The GOP lives in a fantasy world where lowering taxes on the rich raises more tax revenue and cutting spending magically expands GDP. There is no empirical evidence to support this GOP view. None.
I may also add that the current GOP rejects the Keynesian model, which has held up quite well, and previous conservatives accepted -- merely because the model goes against the current GOP's agenda of rejecting anything Obama.
Talk about fantasy world. Unemployment is the worst in 70 years, more Americans are on the public dole than ever, our debt is higher than ever and growing faster than ever.
I'll take the GOP supply side model any day!
Paul Ryan is such a phony and those who take him seriously are ignorant. Ryan helped Bush double the national debt. His budget plan increases the country's debt. The fact that many on the right find him as their messiah is just dumb.
The worst of the debt incurred in the Bush years happened from 2007 on, when the democrats were back in control of congress. Yes dumb is the right word but about the wrong party.
Oh those of so little memory. I recall one steady fillibuster during that entire time. I will be the first to admit that Obama lacks the political "Killer instinct" that he needed to use to crush that opposition. He tried to be the nice guy and to appeal to bipartisanship. He should have known better that there is no reasoning with these throwbacks to the guilded age.
Did Reagan have fillibuster proof majorities? Did Clinton? They still managed to get things accomplished. The economy wasn't in a death spiral during their administrations. Obama is the worst leader this country has ever had.
NO ONE on this thread who has called Krugman an "idiot" or "discredited" has managed to successfully refute any of his points in the OP's article.
I find that rather meaningful.
Krugman can not understand that broadening the tax base means cutting writeoffs. You can cut the tax rate and increase revenue. Tax cuts create economic growth which brings more revenue. Krugman does not understand that reforming medicare parts A and B to a system that is like parts C and D will create competition from the private sector that will save billions. His thinking about Ryan's changes are purely static and he ignors the growth that free markets, lower tax burdens and competition bring to an economy.
Talk about fantasy world. Unemployment is the worst in 70 years, more Americans are on the public dole than ever, our debt is higher than ever and growing faster than ever.
I'll take the GOP supply side model any day!
The unemployment rate has no bearing on which model is more accurate. The test of a model is how well it holds up in the real world.
The supply siders and the Austrians were predicting that increased deficit spending and the Fed's response to the economic crisis, namely tripling the money supply, would create hyperinflation, high interest rates and a drop in the value of the dollar.
But economists who knew basic macroeconomic theory – specifically, the IS-LM model, which was John Hicks’s interpretation of John Maynard Keynes, and at least used to be in the toolkit of every practicing macro economist – had a very different take. By late 2008 the United States and other advanced nations were up against the zero lower bound; that is, central banks had cut rates as far as they could, yet their economies remained deeply depressed. And under those conditions it was straightforward to see that deficit spending would not, in fact, raise rates, as long as the spending wasn’t enough to bring the economy back near full employment. It wasn’t that economists had a lot of experience with such situations (although Japan had been in a similar position since the mid-1990s). It was, rather, that Keynesian economists had special tools, in the form of models, that allowed them to make useful analyses and predictions even in conditions very far from normal experience.
And those who knew IS-LM and used it – those who understood what a liquidity trap means – got it right, while those with lots of real-world experience were wrong. Morgan Stanley eventually apologized to its investors, as rates not only stayed low but dropped; so, later, did Pimco’s head, Bill Gross. Today, deficits remain near historic highs – and interest rates remain near historic lows; there is no hint of inflation and the dollar is strong.
So, which model held up better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rikoshaprl
The worst of the debt incurred in the Bush years happened from 2007 on, when the democrats were back in control of congress. Yes dumb is the right word but about the wrong party.
That's just the blame game and it's factually wrong. The worst debt occurred in 2009, at the peak of the economic crisis.
But blaming the Democrats for taking office in 2007 as the cause of the debt is myopic. Name the policies that the Democrats passed in those two years to create the debt? Those who actually know something about this, know that the economic crisis did two things A) reduced government revenue, and; B) triggered automatic spending increases like unemployment insurance; Food Stamps and Medicaid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rikoshaprl
Krugman can not understand that broadening the tax base means cutting writeoffs. You can cut the tax rate and increase revenue. Tax cuts create economic growth which brings more revenue. Krugman does not understand that reforming medicare parts A and B to a system that is like parts C and D will create competition from the private sector that will save billions. His thinking about Ryan's changes are purely static and he ignors the growth that free markets, lower tax burdens and competition bring to an economy.
Ok? Refuted enough?
There is no evidence that cutting tax-rates increases revenues. None. It didn't work when Reagan cut taxes in 1982, who then had to raise taxes when his supply-side theory failed and it didn't work for Bush either, who turned surpluses into endless deficits. Bush 43 has attempted the same policy with the exact same result. Bush 43 has cut taxes twice. Yet revenue from individual taxpayers has not increased sufficiently to make-up for the loss in revenue.
nnnn
Regarding your theory that tax cuts create economic growth (and then increases revenue) we see below that the economic growth under Bush was slower, with his tax-cuts, than under Clinton with tax increases. Another of your theories bites the dust. The supply-side theory has been long discredited.
Last edited by MTAtech; 08-21-2012 at 06:52 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
