Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Look at the Economy the Other Way Around

Sarah's picture
Thread: 

So, Paul Krugman has taken up a challenge regarding the stimulus plan: he's showing why the GOP critics are not arguing in good faith when they talk about how it can't successfully work. I think he's got some good points in his claims, and I urge you to look at them. I also suggest we take a hard look at the simplest aspect of the proposal: it's not the same approach we've been fed, (tax cuts uber alles) which hasn't worked. Why not try it?
Nota bene: adios, Bill Kristol,

you careless excuse for a columnist.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

Next, write off anyone who asserts that it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money.

Here’s how to think about this argument: it implies that we should shut down the air traffic control system. After all, that system is paid for with fees on air tickets — and surely it would be better to let the flying public keep its money rather than hand it over to government bureaucrats. If that would mean lots of midair collisions, hey, stuff happens.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

For some reason, against my better judgment, I followed the link to Huffington Post--which is part of the media problem given their behavior this election. Krugman was responding to specific bogus assertions by the GOP regarding Obama's stimulus, If you read Krugman regularly, you'd note that he is very skeptical of Obama's stimulus, both scope (too little) and in the details (e.g. tax cuts). Krugman is responding primarily to the conservative attacks on the common sense, er liberal, aspects of Obama's stimulus. It's wrong to interpret Krugman as saying this is somehow new (note the school lunch example, something definitely not new). It's also misleading to pretend that Krugman is championing Obama's stimulus rather than debunking conservative myths. I'm sure he'll take this over nothing, but he hardly seems hopey-changey about Obama's stimulus.

Here's a link to Krugman's blog. Here's an old post of Krugman's everyone should read after reading this post.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

I posted on Krugman's column from today's NYT, in which he points out the dishonesty of those GOP attacks on the stimulus plan and on the inefficacy of tax cuts. What's so horrible in my pointing out what he's said? You're perfectly welcome to call me out, but what Krugman says in today's NYT is still valid.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

In fact, I said this:

Here's a link to Krugman's blog. Here's an old post of Krugman's everyone should read after reading this post.

In other words, I was calling on people to pay more attention to what Krugman says, not diminishing anything he says. So, if you want to keep you're last sentence in your reply, fine, but it's clear to any observer that the implication from that sentence is absurd.

Andre's picture
Submitted by Andre on

Why not try it? Because proving he's the first president of the post partisan era is more a priority than turning the economy around. It's good not to listen to what he's saying, but to watch what he's doing. This will be a recurring theme, and will on almost all occasions show that he doesn't get it. The recurring theme being that proving his pet theories are the answer to good governance is more important than actual good governance. Sorry it wasn't very simple.