"fiscal Scare Tactics"

[jazzbo]

By Dr. Paul Krugman:

These days it’s hard to pick up a newspaper or turn on a news program without encountering stern warnings about the federal budget deficit. The deficit threatens economic recovery, we’re told; it puts American economic stability at risk; it will undermine our influence in the world. These claims generally aren’t stated as opinions, as views held by some analysts but disputed by others. Instead, they’re reported as if they were facts, plain and simple.

Yet they aren’t facts...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/opinion/05krugman.html

[tomwct]

This Krugman is a NUT case!!! He is a Socialist, Progressive, Big Government and Far Left Socialist Democrat!!! The US Budget will be brought back under control after the elections in the states on 2 November 2010!!! The Socialist Democrats, under there Messiah, Barrack Hussein Obama, will be taught a lesson for not listening to the Voters!!! Also, the Republicans voting with the Messiah will be sent home for permanent retirement!!!

[CWMcMurray]

So now that the far left and far right have rung in.... the reality is likely to fall some where in between the above 2 posters opinions

[PattayaParent]

Has anything really changed since the days of Keynes?

[samran]

This Krugman is a NUT case!!! He is a Socialist, Progressive, Big Government and Far Left Socialist Democrat!!! The US Budget will be brought back under control after the elections in the states on 2 November 2010!!! The Socialist Democrats, under there Messiah, Barrack Hussein Obama, will be taught a lesson for not listening to the Voters!!! Also, the Republicans voting with the Messiah will be sent home for permanent retirement!!!

socialist..haha, funny. Do you actually realise that you sound silly?

Can you tell me what a socialist is? He won his nobel prize for his theories on international trade. You don't get to his level of economics without fundamentally believing in free markets.

New Keynsian, probably. Socialist? No Hahaha.

And the debt? What, do you reckon it all magically appeared on 20 Jan 2009 and that the previous 8 years had a US budget run in surplus? hahah...

[FM505]

This Krugman is a NUT case!!! He is a Socialist, Progressive, Big Government and Far Left Socialist Democrat!!! The US Budget will be brought back under control after the elections in the states on 2 November 2010!!! The Socialist Democrats, under there Messiah, Barrack Hussein Obama, will be taught a lesson for not listening to the Voters!!! Also, the Republicans voting with the Messiah will be sent home for permanent retirement!!!

Amen.

[FM505]

This Krugman is a NUT case!!! He is a Socialist, Progressive, Big Government and Far Left Socialist Democrat!!! The US Budget will be brought back under control after the elections in the states on 2 November 2010!!! The Socialist Democrats, under there Messiah, Barrack Hussein Obama, will be taught a lesson for not listening to the Voters!!! Also, the Republicans voting with the Messiah will be sent home for permanent retirement!!!

socialist..haha, funny. Do you actually realise that you sound silly?

Can you tell me what a socialist is? He won his nobel prize for his theories on international trade. You don't get to his level of economics without fundamentally believing in free markets.

New Keynsian, probably. Socialist? No Hahaha.

And the debt? What, do you reckon it all magically appeared on 20 Jan 2009 and that the previous 8 years had a US budget run in surplus? hahah...

Theoretical budget surplus... projections. Fake numbers by an inept administration prior to the 'previous 8'... Do your homework.

A socialist is what communists call themselves... being fundamentally opposed to individual liberties and to expressing their ideas honestly. They seek to centralize power for themselves while redistributing the wealth 'of others'... that which they can not, will not or are unable to produce themselves. Unfathomable for those with their head in the sand.

[jazzbo]

Dr. Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist. So was Dr. Milton Friedman and the two probably disagreed with each other on just about everything. It is fun though to post these New York Times references to see the TV 'usual suspects' come out from the scrub.

BTW my favorite Nobel Economist (2001) is Dr. Joseph Stiglitz.

[hhgz]

"The US Budget will be brought back under control..."

The US budget reflects 8 years of Bush43's recklessness, and wanton destruction of the US economy.

[IMA_FARANG]

Call me crazy if you like, but not being either a Nobel winning economist or a Ronald Regan worshiping free-market trickle down capitalist, all I know is when I spend more than I make and my bank account goes down a level where I need to take action, there are only two choices.

1. To find more income.

2. To cut my expenses.

Now to extrapolate that to the national level it means.

1. Cutting spending.

2. Raising taxes.

And call me silly, but I might sippose that the several hundred billion dollars in annual expenses that the U.S. military is incurring in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan might be adding to the deficet. Not to mention the 600 million that went to the bankers at the behest of George W.

And since, if taxes have to be raised to help pay to cover the costs...why should they not be paid by those who have the money, not the workers.

But maybe, that's all too simple.

[FM505]

"The US Budget will be brought back under control..."

The US budget reflects 8 years of Bush43's recklessness, and wanton destruction of the US economy.

Reckless in that he did not veto a single spending bill for the first six years... those 'wanton' ambitions originate in the House of Representatives. That is the folly of 'reaching across the aisle' to work with the opposition (i.e. spend happy career politicians).

[FM505]

Call me crazy if you like, but not being either a Nobel winning economist or a Ronald Regan worshiping free-market trickle down capitalist, all I know is when I spend more than I make and my bank account goes down a level where I need to take action, there are only two choices.

1. To find more income.

2. To cut my expenses.

Now to extrapolate that to the national level it means.

1. Cutting spending.

2. Raising taxes.

And call me silly, but I might sippose that the several hundred billion dollars in annual expenses that the U.S. military is incurring in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan might be adding to the deficet. Not to mention the 600 million that went to the bankers at the behest of George W.

And since, if taxes have to be raised to help pay to cover the costs...why should they not be paid by those who have the money, not the workers.

But maybe, that's all too simple.

You are close... correct on both points 1 & 2.

To single out any spending allotment is to ignore others equally or exceptionally out of proportion... perhaps owing to a preferred axe to grind.

Overly generalized assertions also dilute the substance of a intellectual exercise. 'Millions to the bankers' rings hollow. No specifics.

The billions to bankers under the current administration doesn't rate a mention...?

A 50% increase in the already bloated and top heavy education funding was in the first GWBush budget... no mention...?

****

The taxation topic is just as simple a matter as the budget control measures you employ... if one is ready to accept the truth:

In the US 86% of all federal taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners.

The top 1% pay 39%, up 2% from 2000 when GWBush took office.

Source: data from the Latest Tax Year Released by the IRS.

Wall Street Journal: "In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share."

Lower the tax rates and revenues to the treasury increase. It's that simple.

The gov't only supplies arbitrary numbers in the collection process.

Harping on the burdens of working people is a bogus conversation and an errant thought process.

Everyone who works and pays taxes should be able to keep more of their own money. After all it is theirs... that sounds simple enough.

Edited February 7, 2010 by FM505

[connda]

Implement a 15% flat tax on everyone and then get rid of the bloated bureaucracy. More taxes revenue generated with less government -- Problem solved. And all that should happen just about the time hel_l freezes over...but there you have it.

[jesimps]

Call me crazy if you like, but not being either a Nobel winning economist or a Ronald Regan worshiping free-market trickle down capitalist, all I know is when I spend more than I make and my bank account goes down a level where I need to take action, there are only two choices.

1. To find more income.

2. To cut my expenses.

Now to extrapolate that to the national level it means.

1. Cutting spending.

2. Raising taxes.

And call me silly, but I might sippose that the several hundred billion dollars in annual expenses that the U.S. military is incurring in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan might be adding to the deficet. Not to mention the 600 million that went to the bankers at the behest of George W.

And since, if taxes have to be raised to help pay to cover the costs...why should they not be paid by those who have the money, not the workers.

But maybe, that's all too simple.

You start your post claiming to be middle-of-the-road, I think, but the rest of it puts you in the 'raving commie' category. Which are you? My money's on the raving commie.