Nobel Laureate Economist- Krugman eviscerates Repub's Budget

[Dot Com]

Like shootin' fish in a shot glass (who said that here the other day?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/o...llion-dollar-fraudsters.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

By now it’s a Republican Party tradition: Every year the party produces a budget that allegedly slashes deficits, but which turns out to contain a trillion-dollar “magic asterisk” — a line that promises huge spending cuts and/or revenue increases, but without explaining where the money is supposed to come from.

But the just-released budgets from the House and Senate majorities break new ground. Each contains not one but two trillion-dollar magic asterisks: one on spending, one on revenue. And that’s actually an understatement. If either budget were to become law, it would leave the federal government several trillion dollars deeper in debt than claimed, and that’s just in the first decade.

discuss the Repubs "*"

CrusaderFrank

 

[The Rabbi]

What spending did Democrats cut in their budgets? Oh, wait. Democrats didnt pass a budget for 6 years.
Krugman has been discredited more times than Joe Stalin.

 

[blackhawk]

A far left ideology like Krugman does not like the Republican budget is this supposed to be a surprise?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Pretty interesting and thought-provoking piece. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

If you get your financial advice from krugman you'll be broke in short order the man is an idiot.

 

[HenryBHough]

And Nobel Laureate Obama destroys hope of humankind's survival by handing Iran the keys to building nukes.

Shouldn't we have a cake and maybe some free soft drinks?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Lot of personal attacks on the author - no rebuttals for what the piece says.

How come?

 

[Antares]

LMAO the Senate just killed Bammy's budget 98-1.

 

[bendog]

Krugman himself says the gop budget is in reality a political document rather than any serious proposal. And it's laughable that the gop is still trying to go back to the health care status quo, including presumably the BushII unfunded medicare drug expansion, though maybe they say repeal that too, without providing any alternative to uninsured people.

But, Obama is still talking about free college for everyone, even those who don't bother to graduate.

 

[blackhawk]

Lot of personal attacks on the author - no rebuttals for what the piece says.

How come?

Because Krugmans reputation as an advocate for big government spending is well known. He has never to my knowledge ever backed or supported any Republican budget and likely never will in fact I believe he has even criticized Obama for not spending enough,

 

[nodoginnafight]

Lot of personal attacks on the author - no rebuttals for what the piece says.

How come?

Because Krugmans reputation as an advocate for big government spending is well known. He has never to my knowledge ever backed or supported any Republican budget and likely never will in fact I believe he has even criticized Obama for not spending enough,

Krugman is not saying anything like that in this piece.
He makes some very specific - and provable - points about the GOP budget. Are they true? Is it just easier to attack the messenger than to actually read his piece and find the flaws if there are any?

 

[blackhawk]

Lot of personal attacks on the author - no rebuttals for what the piece says.

How come?

Because Krugmans reputation as an advocate for big government spending is well known. He has never to my knowledge ever backed or supported any Republican budget and likely never will in fact I believe he has even criticized Obama for not spending enough,

Krugman is not saying anything like that in this piece.
He makes some very specific - and provable - about the GOP budget. Are they true? Is it just easier to attack the messenger than than actually read his piece and find the flaws if there are any?

Before you can take someone serious on a subject they have to have a reputation of being someone who can be fair and objective on the subject Krugman does not have that. It would be the same if Grover Norquist were to write an article ripping an Obama budget plan you know your not getting an objective take on it.

 

[Stephanie]

Liberals are so violent in the language they use. he eviscerated, blasted, thumped, stomped, beat, etc

deep down they are vicious people evidently

Freaky Freddie Krugman was pissed Obama didn't ask for more to put our children, grandchildren, and Great children more in DEPT

 

[OKTexas]

Like shootin' fish in a shot glass (who said that here the other day?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/o...llion-dollar-fraudsters.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

By now it’s a Republican Party tradition: Every year the party produces a budget that allegedly slashes deficits, but which turns out to contain a trillion-dollar “magic asterisk” — a line that promises huge spending cuts and/or revenue increases, but without explaining where the money is supposed to come from.

But the just-released budgets from the House and Senate majorities break new ground. Each contains not one but two trillion-dollar magic asterisks: one on spending, one on revenue. And that’s actually an understatement. If either budget were to become law, it would leave the federal government several trillion dollars deeper in debt than claimed, and that’s just in the first decade.

discuss the Repubs "*"

CrusaderFrank

So you think being a Nobel laureate adds to an individuals creds. Nobe has proven themselves to be nothing but left wing political hacks. Gore and the dear leader should have never gotten close enough to a Nobel prize to smell it, much less receive one. Krugman is just another one of those left wing hacks. No one knows what the final budget will look like.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Lot of personal attacks on the author - no rebuttals for what the piece says.

How come?

Because Krugmans reputation as an advocate for big government spending is well known. He has never to my knowledge ever backed or supported any Republican budget and likely never will in fact I believe he has even criticized Obama for not spending enough,

Krugman is not saying anything like that in this piece.
He makes some very specific - and provable - about the GOP budget. Are they true? Is it just easier to attack the messenger than than actually read his piece and find the flaws if there are any?

Before you can take someone serious on a subject they have to have a reputation of being someone who can be fair and objective on the subject Krugman does not have that. It would be the same if Grover Norquist were to write an article ripping an Obama budget plan you know your not getting an objective take on it.

So does the GOP budget include "mystery revenue" and/or "mystery budget cuts" or not?

 

[Antares]

"Obama budget defeated 98-1 in Senate vote"

Obama budget defeated 98-1 in Senate vote - Washington Times

Sorry Paul, spare us your Bullshit

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Krugman is the funniest thing in the newspaper ever since Larson stopped doing the "Far Side" People take him seriously and think he knows what the fuck he's talking about -- a trillion dollar coin! LOLZ and you morons believed that!!

 

[blackhawk]

Lot of personal attacks on the author - no rebuttals for what the piece says.

How come?

Because Krugmans reputation as an advocate for big government spending is well known. He has never to my knowledge ever backed or supported any Republican budget and likely never will in fact I believe he has even criticized Obama for not spending enough,

Krugman is not saying anything like that in this piece.
He makes some very specific - and provable - about the GOP budget. Are they true? Is it just easier to attack the messenger than than actually read his piece and find the flaws if there are any?

Before you can take someone serious on a subject they have to have a reputation of being someone who can be fair and objective on the subject Krugman does not have that. It would be the same if Grover Norquist were to write an article ripping an Obama budget plan you know your not getting an objective take on it.

So does the GOP budget include "mystery revenue" and/or "mystery budget cuts" or not?

The GOP budget is like every other budget both Dem and Rep there fantasies put out because the parties have to go through the motions of pretending they care about having a balanced budget and reducing the national debt.

 

[daws101]

"Obama budget defeated 98-1 in Senate vote"

Obama budget defeated 98-1 in Senate vote - Washington Times

Sorry Paul, spare us your Bullshit

funny thing that senator corn-fed from Texas got the same numbers on his amendment....

 

[nodoginnafight]

Lot of personal attacks on the author - no rebuttals for what the piece says.

How come?

Because Krugmans reputation as an advocate for big government spending is well known. He has never to my knowledge ever backed or supported any Republican budget and likely never will in fact I believe he has even criticized Obama for not spending enough,

Krugman is not saying anything like that in this piece.
He makes some very specific - and provable - about the GOP budget. Are they true? Is it just easier to attack the messenger than than actually read his piece and find the flaws if there are any?

Before you can take someone serious on a subject they have to have a reputation of being someone who can be fair and objective on the subject Krugman does not have that. It would be the same if Grover Norquist were to write an article ripping an Obama budget plan you know your not getting an objective take on it.

So does the GOP budget include "mystery revenue" and/or "mystery budget cuts" or not?

The GOP budget is like every other budget both Dem and Rep there fantasies put out because the parties have to go through the motions of pretending they care about having a balanced budget and reducing the national debt.

So you essentially believe that Krugman's piece is on target except that he left out the part where Democrats do the same thing?

I agree with that position 100%