Paul Krugman Agrees with Beck, Paul, Tea Partiers

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by fivepoint, Jun 28, 2010.

  1. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #1
    While Glenn Beck, Ron Paul, and other small-government, deficit hawk, libertarians have been talking about the coming collapse of the U.S. economy for years, (due to massive government growth, damaging manipulation of the free markets (Freddie, Fannie), out-of-control spending, misguided Keynsian economics, a general societal acceptance of the "hand-out" as opposed to the "hand-up", etc.) Paul Krugman seems to be just now coming along for the ride.

    Unfortunately for us, Paul still finds it politically expedient to completely ignore the true causes of the problem, as he attempts to deflect blame onto those who would promote more fiscal prudence/conservatism. Those of us who would support LOW/NO deficits, those of us who would support removing the government's ability to print more money to pay for their pet projects all the while devaluing the dollar and squeezing the middle class for each and every dime they have.

    [​IMG]

    Unfortunately for us, Paul didn't learn a thing from the recession of 1920... and how we avoided a long-drawn out depression by refusing to bail companies out, by going back to fiscal responsibility, by accepting the readjustment so that the economy could get back to growing... as opposed to the Great Depression (which had far less concerning statistics than the 1920 episode at first) but which was extended and broadened by misguided government intervention.

    Paul is seemingly justifiably worried about the U.S. and other countries following in the footsteps of Greece... but never takes time to ask himself WHY Greece got to that point? What was it about their workforce, what was it about their unions, what was it about their social programs, what was it about their massive spending programs, what was it about Greece which made them fall first? Should we pushing to become more like them, to expand government, to expand debt, to rush to lose our 'AAA' rating? When the world stops buying our debt guys, we are in big trouble. I only hope that our leaders make the decisions necessary to ensure this necessary price adjustment doesn't do more damage than it has to!

    Pay attention, people!


    [​IMG]

    RBS tells clients to prepare for 'monster' money-printing by the Federal Reserve

    US credit rating at risk, Moody's warns
     
  2. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #2
    Based you your graph, I see a trend that might lead to a possible explanation as to how we got to where we are. The red line and the blue line separate in a bad way between 1980 and 1992. Between 1992 and 2000 the blue line went above the red line. Between 2000 and 2008 the red line and blue line separated again. The last budget reflected on that graph was implemented in September of 08, and expired on September of '09.

    I'm racking my brain to try to figure out what was the same between 1980 - 1992 and 2000-2008. Hmmmmm....
     
  3. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #3
    Besides the fact that you should be put in 'time-out' for your blatant and trolling personal attack, and your post will likely be gone soon... I think I should at least quote the most substantive, yet hilariously uninformed comment in your post. ;)

    "nothing has happened." -dinaluvs
     
  4. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #4
    It would be a lot easier if this argument could simply be boiled down to left vs right, wouldn't it? Unfortunately neo-cons and liberals both have spending problems... the problem, is big-government progressivism... either way you look at it, right-left, red-blue... It's been a big problem for a while now... since the 20's. The difference is that now Obama and the democratic legislature are magnifying the problem by speeding up deficit spending like no government in American History!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  5. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #5
     
  6. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #6
    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3750

    and one more time, my favorite...

    http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
     
  7. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #7
    Wait, so now it's OK to post links to CATO? ;) Just trying to keep up.

    I'm glad you agree that it's big-government progressives in both parties... liberal and conservative. I can only hope that your implication of the Republicans in this case is an indication that you also do not support large government deficits and increases in the size of government? That you also support returning to less spending, smaller debt, and a more constitutional form of government?

    Anxiously awaiting the election of Republicans who actually do what they say they'll do. Whose actions speak louder than their words, who actually has deeply held philosophical beliefs regarding the size of government and debt instead of simply playing to their base and doing whatever is necessary to get elected! At least many Democrats are HONEST about wanting to grow government, grow taxes, and often times grow debt. At least they're honest about wanting to be more intrusive in our lives and reduce liberty for the sake of equality.
     
  8. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
  9. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #9
    What doesn't make him one? Clearly his views line up that way... but as he possibly said best, some wouldn't have him advertise that too much! ;)

     
  10. dinaluvsApple macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    #10
    http://www.nndb.com/people/809/000049662/

    He is a Mormon with self-described libertarian leanings, big on conservative politics and traditional family values. In the build-up to America's 2003 war on Iraq, Beck countered anti-war protests by using his radio show to organize dozens of pro-war rallies across the nation, and he has promised he will never question the cause, “no matter how unpopular this war gets." He has described Jimmy Carter as "a waste of skin", Cindy Sheehan as "a pretty big prostitute", and fantasized on the air about strangling to death Michael Moore.
     
  11. #11
    And the problem is?:confused:
     
  12. StruckANerve macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Location:
    Rio Rancho, NM
    #12
    His stance on Military intervention and Gay Marriage automatically disqualify him from being a Libertarian. Being against Bank Bailouts doesn't grant someone the right to call themselves a Libertarian.
     
  13. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #13
    What does being a mormon have to do with anything? Also, I'd say he was dead-on with Cindy Sheehan and Jimmy Carter (assuming a certain level of exaggeration and entertainment being injected into his language). I agree that Cidy is a media and attention prostitute, and I also agree that Jimmy Carter was a horrible president and a big-time progressive. As for the 'strangling', the main ain't running for office, he's running a radio show. There are sometimes I'd want to strangle Michael Moore too... wouldn't we all? :p



    Beck's changing viewpoints on the Iraq and even Afghanistan wars have been well documented. Immediately after 9/11, I think he would agree that he was more like a neo-con.

    He now openly speaks out against them or at least demonstrates considerable concern regarding our 'growing empire' stating that we need to be more like the founders wanted and 'keep out of other peoples business'.

    Why would his viewpoints on Gay Marriage (that it should be decided at the state level) in any way disqualify him from being libertarian?






    By the way, lets try and stay on topic. Please see the OP, we're talking about Krugman's implication of a third Depression, and all you guys can do it debate whether or not Beck is a libertarian? Haha, c'mon!
     
  14. OutThere macrumors 603

    OutThere

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Location:
    NYC
    #14
    Did you read the article?

    Krugman fears we are on the cusp of a third depression, fine, however he is extremely critical of cuts in spending, obsession with balanced budgets and fiscal conservatism.

     
  15. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #15
    Hahaha, I think the better question is... did you read the OP? Clearly not. ;)
     
  16. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #16
    The first graph is just straight-up debt in $. The second one in debt as % of GDP.
    How convenient.
     
  17. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #17
    I have no idea, that's the first time I've ever seen anything from CATO. Didn't he hear something outside of his window where they found the bloody glove?

    I agree that the policies of cutting taxes far below what they should be, massive deficit spending on unnecessary military contracts/wars that do very little for the economy, and otherwise making really bad choices are bad policies. I support spending on targetted, valuable and socially responsible things. So, to answer your question, I support some less spending, some more spending, and some changes to our priorities. I studied ConLaw, and I think you have no clue what you are talking about when you say "constitutional government." I think you're trying to make a "states rights" argument, and we all know what that's code for.

    Pigs with wings.
    Like EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN LINING UP AND VOTING NO even though poll after poll showed that at least some, if not a bunch of their constituents support a piece of legislation. At least the democrats can point to a few of their members and say that they think for themselves. Republicans are bought and paid for, useless for any independent thought. They do exactly what they are told to do, they vote how they are told to vote, and they say what they are paid to say.
    Democrats are not the ones who have grown the debt. We're stuck with this mess, and it sure won't be the SAME people who got us here that will turn things around. We need Democrats to have a lot more time in power to turn things around. It took Clinton 4-5 years to turn things around, and GWB ruined things so much more than his father and Reagan did. Republicans aren't interested in fixing things. If they were, they would vote in ways that demonstrated that they actually represent their constituents in the Red states.
    You mean like abortion restrictions, gay marriage bans, drug bans, patriot act, destroying the protections of the bill of rights, etc...?

    What intrustions are you worried about on your life that the liberals have suggested? Regulations? Come on.
     
  18. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #18
    I've been reading Krugman's column for a few years now and for the most part, he's been right on in regards to global economic issues.

    An interesting observation in the above "graph war" is that severe financial downturns followed massive war spending. I don't think there's any doubt that WWI and WWII were justifiable wars, but why are we in Iraq again? Does anyone really know?

    Damping down spending at this time is a really bad thing. I think the best thing to do is crack down on fraud, tighten up regulations of the financial markets, etc, etc to keep the white collar criminals from impoverishing the poor even more.
     
  19. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
  20. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #20
    Sorry, I meant that American participation in WWI and WWII was justifiable.
     
  21. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #21
    Fair enough, and that's true.
     
  22. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #22
    "Democrats are not the ones who have grown the debt. We're stuck with this mess, and it sure won't be the SAME people who got us here that will turn things around. We need Democrats to have a lot more time in power to turn things around. It took Clinton 4-5 years to turn things around, and GWB ruined things so much more than his father and Reagan did. Republicans aren't interested in fixing things. If they were, they would vote in ways that demonstrated that they actually represent their constituents in the Red states."

    That reads like U.S. history as taught by Saul Alinsky. Seriously out of touch with reality.

    Review the history of the US debt after WW II/Korea. With the exception of the period from the 1994 elections through the 2006 elections, the Democrats had control of the House Appropriations Committee for some forty years before and since then.

    Reagan ruined? He inherited Volcker's high interest rate and the Jimmy Carter stagflation--and his lowering of tax rates set off a boom, with federal revenues increasing throughout his terms. Sure, Rostenkowski's deficits occurred, courtesy the tax'n'spend Democrats' ongoing policy.

    The trouble has been that the RINOs have been as content as the Democrats when it comes to extending federal power by buying constituencies for new programs--and thus higher budgets with more deficits. And now we have the greatest spenders in world history.

    And Krugman is so eat up with Keynesitis that he thinks Stimulus III would be a good thing. Sadly, so does Roubini.

    mcrain, one more time: Lowering tax RATES increases federal income. More business activity, okay? Thus, it's correct to say that "lowering taxes" increases tax-take. You're not actually lowering taxes as gross income to government; you're lowering the rates levied against individuals. They thus have more money to invest which means more production of goods and services on which taxes are levied--and the gross income to government goes up. It occurred after JFK's lowering of the rates, and again during Reagan's tenure.

    The absolute worst thing you can do in a horrendus recession or in a depression such as we are now in is to raise tax rates. If anything, lower them in order to increase investment.
     
  23. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #23
    I think Krugman was right back in the fall of 2008. The stimulus package should have been twice as big and more of it should have gone to truly ready "shovel ready" projects.

    A lot of those projects are just really taking off so we might see a slight uptick this summer in jobs but my guess is that next year we'll see a double dipper.
     
  24. AP_piano295 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    #24
    In the first graph government debt and spending goes very high for world war 2 followed by a long period of historically low deficits.

    I would seem that government spending on infrastructure in the long term leads to general prosperity and growth.
     
  25. AP_piano295 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    #25
    If your theory is correct than surely the data will support your claim.

    [​IMG]
    By apoutwest at 2010-06-28

    I would also invite you to consider the chart on this page

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

    What that chart shows is that not a single democratic president in the last 70 years has presided over a period in which the national debt increased.

    As for Obama the data is not yet in, but if spending is really the problem here the data is not supporting that claim.
     

Share This Page