Paul Krugman: Obama Really Hasn't Increased Federal Spending
By Noel Sheppard | October 11, 2010 | 09:25
There are times when you have to wonder whether liberal shills in the media are are just ignorant or dishonest.
Monday is one of those times.
Consider Nobel laureate Paul Krugman's most recent column in the New York Times entitled "Hey, Small Spender" wherein the man the Left considers to be one of the economic geniuses of our time argues that federal spending really hasn't increased under President Obama.
Most deviously, the Nobel Prize winner in economics never once actually referred to actual figures from the budget to prove his point:
Here’s the narrative you hear everywhere: President Obama has presided over a huge expansion of government, but unemployment has remained high. And this proves that government spending can’t create jobs.
Here’s what you need to know: The whole story is a myth. There never was a big expansion of government spending. In fact, that has been the key problem with economic policy in the Obama years: we never had the kind of fiscal expansion that might have created the millions of jobs we need.
You got that? It's all a myth - until you get to the fourth paragraph:
To be fair, spending on safety-net programs, mainly unemployment insurance and Medicaid, has risen — because, in case you haven’t noticed, there has been a surge in the number of Americans without jobs and badly in need of help. And there were also substantial outlays to rescue troubled financial institutions, although it appears that the government will get most of its money back. But when people denounce big government, they usually have in mind the creation of big bureaucracies and major new programs. And that just hasn’t taken place.
Hmmm. So Obama didn't increase spending - just before before he did. Sounds almost Kerryan, doesn't it?
Have you noticed the conspicuous absence of actual figures? Want to know why? Because they don't support the premise.
George W. Bush's fiscal ’09 budget originally called for outlays of $3.1 trillion. With the financial crisis, this grew to $3.52 trillion.
FY ’10 spending rose to $3.72 trillion, and FY ’11 is projected to be $3.83 trillion. That's a 24 percent increase in less than three years!
Now you know why Krugman chose to make his case without sharing the data?
But here's the best part:
The answer to the second question — why there’s a widespread perception that government spending has surged, when it hasn’t — is that there has been a disinformation campaign from the right, based on the usual combination of fact-free assertions and cooked numbers.
Isn't that marvelous?
Krugman pens a piece for the Times, about the increase in federal spending under Obama being a myth, without using any data to support his premise, and then accuses the right of a "disinformation campaign" on this subject "based on the usual combination of fact-free assertions and cooked numbers."
And the Times editors and ombudsman let him get away with it.
What a joke!
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Submitted by Sergeant ROCK on Mon, 10/11/2010 - 9:46am.
What are these people smoking? Or, should I say what flavor Kool-Aid® are they drinking? These people are delusional. He's not still claiming to be an objective journalist, is he?
Frederic Bastiat
Just want in the hell is all
Submitted by ricklail on Mon, 10/11/2010 - 10:00am.
Just want in the hell is all this porkulus spending? Krugman is NUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And this guy calls himself an Economist? He hasn't ...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Mon, 10/11/2010 - 10:05am.
the slightest clue how the economy works. His degree in Economics should be recalled. Hey Krugman, if you want to spur the economy, it's easy. Cut spending, regulations and taxes, then get out of the way. I vote that Krugman is both ignorant and dishonest.
Don't forget
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 10/11/2010 - 10:17am.
They gave the Chairman the Nobel Prize for nothing after the first two months in office.
-Jon
Krugman.
Submitted by ohiochili on Mon, 10/11/2010 - 10:11am.
Proof positive that his winning the Nobel Prize ranks way below Mary or Johnny winning the best handwasher award of Mrs. Smith's kindergarten class. (Apologies to Mary, Johnny, and Mrs. Smith)
Proof the Nobel committee has cheapened the prize for the winners who are truly deserving.
I'd love to see how he balances his checkbook.
Better still, ohiochili,
Submitted by Nick Shaw on Mon, 10/11/2010 - 3:42pm.
I would love to hear his excuses to the bank when he's overdrawn!
Krugman being a Nobel prize recipient impresses the
Submitted by no tingly legs on Mon, 10/11/2010 - 10:18am.
he*l out of me. People like him and his fellow Nobel receipient, now deceased, Yassir Arafat, are folks we should all look up to. To show what intellectuals the Nobel Committee members are, they can even tell what a person will do in the future, as evidenced by their awarding a prize to our own Dear Leader, even though he hadn't done a damned thing to deserve it. That's where their God given ESP and fortune telling ability kick in.
Not to defend Krugman, but...
Submitted by UltraC on Mon, 10/11/2010 - 12:49pm.
his Nobel prize was awarded by a board of scientists, economists, etc. based on his work in the field of economics, whereas the Nobel Peace Prize was what Arafat and Obama received. The Peace Prize, as I understand it, is awarded by a feel-good committe of politicians with an apparent slant.
That being said, I don't know how Krugman ended up being awarded a Nobel Prize: His economic theories these days just don't hold water.
Krugman has a future doing
Submitted by Hunter12 on Mon, 10/11/2010 - 10:38am.
Krugman has a future doing tax returns for all the Democrats who've failed to file in the past. I'm not saying he'll do them correctly.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Good point
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 10/11/2010 - 12:43pm.
It's not that Krugman is nuts. He's a liar.
I'd say that qualifies him to serve as the next Treasury Secretary.
It's Monday!
Submitted by inquiringmind on Mon, 10/11/2010 - 10:40am.
This must be pick on Krugman day! I like it! Of course he makes it so easy, what else would we do on a Monday!
He's channeling Baghdad Bob.
Submitted by rimsky on Mon, 10/11/2010 - 10:41am.
He's channeling Baghdad Bob.
He's right, in a sort of
Submitted by mattm on Mon, 10/11/2010 - 10:42am.
He's right, in a sort of perverted, convoluted, libtard illogic kind of way...
Since Okenya has devalued the dollar, even with a trillion in new spending it's really as if we hadn't spent one cent more.
By Krug-addict's logic they should print even more money, devalue the dollar even more, and then - BANG!- all our problems are over....
Also, you can't really call OgubmentCare an expansion of bureaucracy since the gubment is really not expanding, it's just forcing healthcare providers to give away stuff for free...
How is that for ANALysis?
Krugman's latest piece
Submitted by HockeyKid on Mon, 10/11/2010 - 11:34am.
Krugman's latest piece wouldn't pass a middle school essay wriiting requirement. The Nobel prizes take yet another hit to their tarnished reputation.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
I was wrong about Krugman yesterday
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 10/11/2010 - 11:52am.
That isn't vodka in his coffee cup, but rather some sort of liquid instant lobotomy inducer. - Daveliquid instant lobotomy inducer
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 10/11/2010 - 11:57am.
LOL! I Love It !
LILI - Liquid Instant Lobotomy Inducer, being mixed in The Kool-Aid since 1960(tm)
_______________________________________
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
_______________________________________
Hasn't increased spending??
Submitted by Patriot II on Mon, 10/11/2010 - 11:58am.
Duh.....maybe that trillion was just misplaced? Might want to look in Geithner or Bernankes pockets!!! Don't forget the african muslim communists pockets either or peloser or red...errr reid imho
I' m really starting to belive
Submitted by gwalt on Mon, 10/11/2010 - 12:04pm.
I'm really starting to believe they say/print something like this absurd story and then sit back and chuckle, e-mail each other and laugh their a***es off on just how absurd this stuff is. Something like Frank Rich to Krugman: Holy ***t Paulie old boy, that was a doozy---you surely outdid my crap trap on Sunday, that's for sure!"A lot of briefing for a 2 hr. special with Dan Rather. Saw the show & wonder why we bothered". Ronald Reagan
Nobel
Submitted by goldbough on Mon, 10/11/2010 - 12:40pm.
Are you sure his Nobel wasn't "Most Ridiculous Economic Views"?