What turned Paul Krugman from academic to firebrand?

[MARIS61]

Then there's less than 1% of the population who make up the tea party movement that are mindless sheep. They're all about doing what they are told to do..

fixed.

30%!

 

[barfo]

I think "the people" need to stare at "this chart" for perhaps "a while":

"The people" think that's cool. America, fuck yeah!

barfo

 

[barfo]

Like I said, everyone's ox has to be gored. Along with cutting the military, other programs would have to be cut.

Well... now we are quite a ways from discussing Krugman's thesis, aren't we? I believe he was saying that there isn't the will to cut anything. You saying that things just are going to have to be cut doesn't really change - or challenge - that.

Corporate welfare? Tax breaks for all sorts of things as well as outright handouts. Funding for ethanol, farm subsidies, and that sort of thing.

Yah, I know. What I don't know is whether cutting that stuff actually matters or not. How much do we spend on those things?

Take a good look at California.

I looked at it up close for years. Moved back to Oregon.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

$0

Wrong.

 

[MARIS61]

Let's face reality here, rather than argue untruths.

[video=youtube;SHDkI1kwgbo]

 

[Denny Crane]

Well... now we are quite a ways from discussing Krugman's thesis, aren't we? I believe he was saying that there isn't the will to cut anything. You saying that things just are going to have to be cut doesn't really change - or challenge - that.



Yah, I know. What I don't know is whether cutting that stuff actually matters or not. How much do we spend on those things?



I looked at it up close for years. Moved back to Oregon.

barfo

I already made my point (and scored) about Krugman's thesis. The point being if entitlements are 20% or 40% of the budget, that leaves the remaining 60%-80% of the budget that can be cut back.

I actually am not a deficit hawk in general. It really depends on what the money is being spent on. Borrow $1T at 1% and invest it in something that pays 2% and why should I gripe? Borrow $1T and spend it on cheese for the unemployed and the product is literally shit.

The things that govt. is talking about spending on anymore is borrowing at 2% to get a 1% return, and they're trying to make up the different with volume. It simply doesn't make any economic or fiscal sense.

 

[Ed O]

The things that govt. is talking about spending on anymore is borrowing at 2% to get a 1% return, and they're trying to make up the different with volume. It simply doesn't make any economic or fiscal sense.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/clips/first-citywide-change-bank/229045/

Ed O.

 

[barfo]

I already made my point (and scored) about Krugman's thesis. The point being if entitlements are 20% or 40% of the budget, that leaves the remaining 60%-80% of the budget that can be cut back.

And I already pointed out that that was an off-topic point because you are depending on cutting the stimulus money to get those numbers, and the stimulus is already going away automatically, and besides, Krugman was talking about long-term trends, not just this year.

Not to mention that your numbers are pretty darn fuzzy. In no recent year have entitlements been anything like 20%.

Borrow $1T and spend it on cheese for the unemployed and the product is literally shit.

Right. Let them eat cake, eh Marie?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Right. Let them eat cake, eh Marie?

barfo

Let them have jobs so they can buy whatever food they want.

 

[Denny Crane]

And I already pointed out that that was an off-topic point because you are depending on cutting the stimulus money to get those numbers, and the stimulus is already going away automatically, and besides, Krugman was talking about long-term trends, not just this year.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-01-budget-obama_N.htm

Obama unveils record $3.8 trillion budget

WASHINGTON — President Obama sent Congress on Monday a record $3.8 trillion budget for 2011 that would boost war spending, trim some domestic spending and rely on $1.3 trillion in new borrowing.

The budget would be the third in a row with a deficit of more than $1 trillion, following this year's record $1.6 trillion, a figure the White House increased in its budget.

The red ink would be cut in half by 2014, mostly by allowing tax cuts on families making more than $250,000 to expire in 2011.



So the deficit will be cut in half because the so-called stimulus is going away automatically? Doesn't look like it. The stimulus money is spent by 2010, so why is the budget so huge through 2014?

Oh wait, the budget isn't going to be cut at all, is it? Obama claims the deficit will be cut in half by raising taxes is all.

What's your next theory?

Mine is that over time, few (if any) govt. programs ever go away or get smaller.

While the "trim some domestic spending" might seem encouraging, it's the ~$20B in cuts they were bragging about last year.

In any case, another line from the article:

Democrats were restrained in their praise of the budget. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., only lauded the fiscal commission, whose recommendations would not be binding.

 

[MikeDC]

The "starve the beast" analogy is typical ham-fisted political recrimination. It's really nothing but a call for the other side in the debate to completely capitulate, which is absurd.

Krugman asks if one side is willing to "double down", but the reality is this is a two-sided political game. It's like two guys yelling at each other when as they play chicken. Or prepare for a duel.

In practice, that sort of talk is not only shallow and pedantic (cue Family Guy reference), it's counterproductive. Duels, historically, were resolved before coming to violence by the friends of the duelers. They came to violence when these "friends" turned out to be bomb-throwing shit-talkers who instigated trouble rather than avoided it. Krugman has made himself the latter type of friend, making it that much harder for the reasonable folks to reach an agreement.

 

[mook]

The "starve the beast" analogy is typical ham-fisted political recrimination. It's really nothing but a call for the other side in the debate to completely capitulate, which is absurd.

Is it recrimination if you just quote what the other party's stated strategy has been for 25 years? "Starve the beast" isn't some parody or idiosyncratic fringe of thinking of the political right. It was exactly what they said they wanted to do in the early 1980's, and it's been a major justification of every tax cut proposed by the right ever since. It's a core belief.

If somebody says, "I hate tomatoes," and then goes around stomping on tomatoes, is it a "ham-fisted political recrimination" to point out afterward that they always said they hated tomatoes?

Krugman is just pointing out that this fundamental strategy has two basic steps:
1. Cut taxes. Make big government completely unaffordable. Starve the beast.
2. Eliminate government programs now that we can't afford them.

It's not dishonest or playing political games or being "ham-fisted" to point out that Republicans have largely won the battle on point #1, but have never gotten around to point #2.

Krugman isn't demanding they capitulate. The exact opposite. He's (somewhat ironic for a liberal) demanding Republicans actually follow through on step #2. Go ahead and try to eliminate some programs. For decades they've had taken easy road of being the "low tax" party, which was what is required for step #1. We're finally at the point where the much more unpopular road of step #2 has to be faced.

 

[MikeDC]

Is it recrimination if you just quote what the other party's stated strategy has been for 25 years? "Starve the beast" isn't some parody or idiosyncratic fringe of thinking of the political right. It was exactly what they said they wanted to do in the early 1980's, and it's been a major justification of every tax cut proposed by the right ever since. It's a core belief.

Yes. Just as much as his party's stated strategy for 25 years has been "feed the beast".

Krugman is just pointing out that this fundamental strategy has two basic steps:
1. Cut taxes. Make big government completely unaffordable. Starve the beast.
2. Eliminate government programs now that we can't afford them.

It's not dishonest or playing political games or being "ham-fisted" to point out that Republicans have largely won the battle on point #1, but have never gotten around to point #2.

Sure it is. What you say above can be re-arranged to point out that the Democratic fundamental strategy had two basic steps.
1. Create government programs that foster dependence.
2. Figure out out to pay for them.

The Republican and Democratic positions are mirror images. One prioritized increased spending first, believing higher taxes will be necessary later to pay for it. And will become fait accompli. The other has prioritized cutting taxes, believing it will make reduced spending in the future that much more necessary.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that these two positions reinforce and enable each other.

Krugman isn't demanding they capitulate. The exact opposite. He's (somewhat ironic for a liberal) demanding Republicans actually follow through on step #2. Go ahead and try to eliminate some programs. For decades they've had taken easy road of being the "low tax" party, which was what is required for step #1. We're finally at the point where the much harder road of step #2 hast to be faced.

Go ahead and try and eliminate some programs... over my dead body. Is what he's saying.

Which is one-sided, irresponsible and inflammatory.

The reasonable approach, again, is to recognize all parties were playing the game, and that all parties are going to have movement on their issue of choice because the "grand bargain" both sides have been operating under isn't going to last.

 

[barfo]

People DO want to cut government spending.

I just proposed a $900B cut. People hate the bank bailouts ($400B/year over 2 years) and the so-called stimulus bill (also $400B/year over 2 years).

Even if those were one-time spending things, the budget wouldn't be negative $trillion+ per year if there wasn't some massive increase in spending.

Then there's about 30% of the population who make up the tea party movement that your kind misunderestimates. They're all about fiscal responsibility.

Sure they do.

And that's conservatives.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Sure they do.

And that's conservatives.

barfo

You must have missed the poll where they asked "would you pay 50% more taxes to pay for current spending levels on these things?"

 

[MARIS61]

Let them have jobs so they can buy whatever food they want.

The jobs are all overseas now.

Should they have to move to the middle east or se asia to work for an American company?

 

[Denny Crane]

The jobs are all overseas now.

Should they have to move to the middle east or se asia to work for an American company?

This just flies in the face of logic.