Krugman Lies and Distorts History to Blame Recession and Budget Deficits on Bush
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman Monday wrote another in a series of factually dishonest pieces about budget deficits and what he likes to call 'the Great Recession."
In his "The Unwisdom of Elites," the unabashed liberal made numerous falsehoods and omissions to blame our current economic and budget woes exclusively on George W. Bush and "small groups of influential people":
These days Americans get constant lectures about the need to reduce the budget deficit. That focus in itself represents distorted priorities, since our immediate concern should be job creation. But suppose we restrict ourselves to talking about the deficit, and ask: What happened to the budget surplus the federal government had in 2000?
The answer is, three main things. First, there were the Bush tax cuts, which added roughly $2 trillion to the national debt over the last decade. Second, there were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which added an additional $1.1 trillion or so. And third was the Great Recession, which led both to a collapse in revenue and to a sharp rise in spending on unemployment insurance and other safety-net programs.
So who was responsible for these budget busters? It wasn’t the man in the street.
President George W. Bush cut taxes in the service of his party’s ideology, not in response to a groundswell of popular demand — and the bulk of the cuts went to a small, affluent minority.
Ah, yes - the infamous "tax cuts for the rich" meme. Krugman and his ilk have been dishonestly misrepresenting this lie for over ten years now.
I guess the Nobel laureate missed an assessment by the liberal Brookings Institution last July that completely debunked what the left and their media minions have been telling the masses since these tax cuts were proposed. As NewsBusters summarized:
According to Treasury, the total ten-year cost of completely extending the Bush tax cuts is $3.675 trillion. The ten-year cost exclusively associated with extending tax cuts to folks Obama, the Democrats, and the media consider rich is $679 billion.
This means that almost $3 trillion of the cost associated with the Bush tax cuts over the next ten years, or 82 percent, is not for benefits to the so-called rich.
That's right. According to Brookings - which used data directly from the Treasury Department - 82 percent of the Bush tax cuts go to folks making less than $250,000 a year. Yet Krugman claimed "the bulk of the cuts went to a small, affluent minority."
But that was just the beginning of the dishonesty:
Similarly, Mr. Bush chose to invade Iraq because that was something he and his advisers wanted to do, not because Americans were clamoring for war against a regime that had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact, it took a highly deceptive sales campaign to get Americans to support the invasion, and even so, voters were never as solidly behind the war as America’s political and pundit elite.
Really? A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll taken days before the March 2003 invasion found:
By a 2-to-1 ratio, Americans favor invading Iraq with U.S. ground troops to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Not since November 2001 have they approved so overwhelmingly. Nearly six in 10 say they're ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two."
Would you say 2-to-1 is "solidly behind?" How can a person writing a bi-weekly column for a major American newspaper be allowed to lie this way?
Sadly, the man praised by so many on the left wasn't done:
Finally, the Great Recession was brought on by a runaway financial sector, empowered by reckless deregulation. And who was responsible for that deregulation? Powerful people in Washington with close ties to the financial industry, that’s who. Let me give a particular shout-out to Alan Greenspan, who played a crucial role both in financial deregulation and in the passage of the Bush tax cuts — and who is now, of course, among those hectoring us about the deficit.
There is certainly no question that deregulation was behind the housing bubble and the eventual collapse of the financial services industry in 2008, but what Krugman dishonestly did here was ignore the pieces of legislation involved as well as who signed them into law.
The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 passed in the Senate by a vote of 90 to 8 and 362 to 57 in the House. This is what completely deregulated banks, brokerage firms, and insurance companies to invest in anything they wanted. It was signed by William Jefferson Clinton that November.
Clinton enacted the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 - with overwhelming bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress - the following December. This largely deregulated the commodities industry, in particular credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations directly tied to the expansion of the credit bubble.
To thoroughly ignore these bills and who signed them in a piece blaming Bush for all that ails us is the height of dishonesty. It is also deplorable to discuss budget deficits without once mentioning that the major cause of the current imbalance is a 41 percent increase in spending since the Democrats took over Congress in 2007.
Yet the folks at the New York Times continue to believe this man deserves a bi-weekly column. What does that tell you about the integrity of that so-called "news" organization?
And here's the delicious punch line better known as Krugman's conclusion:
But the larger answer, I’d argue, is that by making up stories about our current predicament that absolve the people who put us here there, we cut off any chance to learn from the crisis. We need to place the blame where it belongs, to chasten our policy elites. Otherwise, they’ll do even more damage in the years ahead.
Pretty funny considering it is Krugman "making up stories about our current predicament that absolve the people who put us here" while incorrectly placing the blame. It is his dishonesty along with the media outlet that employs him that are doing "damage" to our nation and its ability to solve problems facing us.
As long as people like Krugman are elevated to positions of status thereby allowing them to present economic, financial, and fiscal falsehoods with total impunity, it is going to be next to impossible for America to make the decisions it needs to in the coming months and years to prevent a crisis far worse than what we saw in 2008.
Heaven help us.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
"motherbelt's axiom" comes into play here.
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 10:12am.
They know the truth. The facts are a conspiracy.
Krugman: We need to place the blame where it belongs, to chasten our policy elites. Otherwise, they’ll do even more damage in the years ahead.
I thought those people who ruined everything were in the Bush administration. So how can they do even more damage now?
LOL.....sometimes the truth trickles in
Submitted by nonncom on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 10:26am.
and sometimes it's a deluge.....very good....
Don't Confuse Krugman....
Submitted by Thunder Lizard on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 10:26am.
...with any facts. He is an ideologue pure and simple, and salt will always be pepper to him if it suits his world view. He conveniently glosses over Obama's promises and trillions in spending to undo Bush policies and keep things from getting "worse." Even though Obama has now steered the ship into an iceberg, Krugman is still chanting "full steam ahead captain." He probably will even as the ship is going under, because that is what ideologues do.
Calling him an ideologue...
Submitted by tvhall on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 12:50pm.
Is a grave insult to all ideologues everywhere. What he is, is a member of the Obama cult. Willing to do anything, say anything to support his messiah. He has long ago sold his soul to the lowest bidder and unfortunately fits right in at the NYT.
Krugman has no other choice
Submitted by c5then on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 10:36am.
Looking at history (recent or ancient) with an objective view clearly shows that any time Government gets deeply involved in the economy (for whatever reasons) it invariably leads to a disaster. The worst case scenarios involve governments trying to "save" priviledged companies or sectors or trying to cojole or influence those same companies or sectors. It is always a bad idea and ends in financial ruin for many and sometimes the fall of the country.
Krugmen, in a herculean effort to try and prop up his chosen ideology, must obfuscate and outright change history in order to even have a hope of fooling people into thinking that taxing the "rich" into oblivion is the right, proper and sustainable way to go.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
But.....but......but.....
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 10:54am.
That won't happen this time, c5, because the "right" people are in charge.....
Isn't that how it works?
Eggs-ackley!
Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:32am.
Every time.
Yep... That is the story
Submitted by c5then on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:57am.
Always and forever...
They assume that those who tried it before were simply stupid and didn't have the superior knowledge and data that they have today. They can't make the same mistakes because they are sooooo much smarter.
This is always the core thinking of the elites.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Less we forget
Submitted by desert3030 on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 10:40am.
The housing policy statements by the writers friends The Honorable Frank and Dodd. Freddie and Fannie will take billions now and in the future to solve. Yet not a word? Clinton's Crashing dot com's, with major win falls for high level Dem's (Terry)? 13...great number, 13 times Osama was missed because Slick Willy didn't have the nads to pull the trigger, what if? What is that "price tag"?
Not one of these have or had an impact? Shame on you Paulie....you have moved to Dem hack status. No need to take the time to read you with such a (benefit of doubt) error in statements.
Those Evil "Deregulators"
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 10:47am.
NS contends: "There is certainly no question that deregulation was behind the housing bubble and the eventual collapse of the financial services industry in 2008.....".
If we go on the assumption that it was the lack of regulation in the housing markets, or lack of regulation in the financial services industry, that led to the collapse of housing prices in 2007-2008, the only defense conservatives are left with, is who is to blame for the deregulation that led to that collapse. So Mr. Sheppard is left with the "Democrats are the ones who deregulated" defense. This whole line of thinking, though, is flawed from the start.
Since the creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two Government Sponsored Enterprises, (backed by the the implied guarantee of the federal government), the housing market has been to some degree "regulated". Likewise, the financial services industry, i.e., banking, insurance and brokerage firms, is one of the most, (if not the most), heavily regulated industries in the United States. The only thing that has changed at all since the 1930s, is one of degree. Housing and financial services has never been "deregulated". The degree of regulation may have changed, but it is the initial and progressive regulation that is at the heart of the housing market collapse.
The single most underlying contributor to the collapse, was the implied government guarantee to every mortgage loan that was ever underwritten by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This type of mortgage loan was the vast bulk of the market, prior to the housing collapse, (and it remains so to this very day). The fact that these mortgage loans where guaranteed by the federal government is what allowed investors to purchase the mortgage-backed-securities that bundled under-collateralized, poorly underwritten, or out-and-out fraudulent mortgages.
If the underlying mortgages didn't have the implied guarantee of the federal government, no investor would have ever purchased securities collateralized by worthless mortgages!
Did the brokerage firms and banks take advantage of a rigged market to make a buck? How shocking! These firms helped write the regulations that led to the collapse. Their own hubris, that they were too smart to ever get taken in by this scheme, led to their own downfall. But let us never be mistaken and fall for the false argument that "the deregulated housing and financial services market" led to the housing bubble. The way the housing market was regulated was the reason why the housing bubble, and the ultimate inevitable bursting of that bubble, occurred.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
I agree, Kingfish
Submitted by ckc1227 on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 3:12pm.
Deregulation wasn't/isn't the issue.
Interesting side note, those trillions of dollars of credit default swaps that supposedly caused the collapse are still out there.
I understand why the MSM
Submitted by inquiringmind on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 10:49am.
I understand why the MSM continue to use him as their "go to guy" when it comes to this stuff. They have an adgenda and they don't understand economics.
But for any serious economist to buy this crap is beyond me. Any first year economics major could blow his assertions out of the water.
And a Nobel prize for his work?
Sorry guys, you are misrepresenting what Krugman said
Submitted by zenman1661 on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:10am.
It pains me to defend him, but its clear Krugman was talking about the Bush tax cuts for everyone, not just for the wealthy. And if just talking about that, his figure is correct. Now if you want to counter him by saying they wre needed at the time due to the economic downturn when the dot com bubble burst and the less burden to taxpayers caused an increase in tax revenue. But I feel the real culprit for the great recessation was Alan Greenspan for keeping the interest rate too low, virtually causing the housing bubble which fed the Wall Street meltdown.
Was There Really a Single Culprit?
Submitted by Comrade Jim on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 12:01pm.
How about the Community Reinvestment Act forcing bad loans, Congress (e.g. B Frank, C Dodd,...) ignoring testimony of oversight regulators, Congress support of Fannie Mae taking on bad debt, laws allowing bad loan bundling,....
Many things came together to cause the great recession and most originated with government interference in the market for political purposes. Politicians like to run a political economy not a market economy for the reason that they want to be players in the game.
Small correction
Submitted by c5then on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 12:15pm.
Politicians don't want to be players in the game, else they would be business men and women and not politicians. Politicians want to control the game and decide on who wins and who loses. In effect they want to be player/referees.
That is the basic problem. If we had a limitied government like we started with the politicians couldn't hope to do that and therefore wouldn't be politicians. They would be running companies contributing to the GDP instead of subtracting from it.
Barney Frank wanted everybody to have a single family home with a yard and fence. So he tried to force banks to give loans to people who were unable to pay for them on a long term basis. Instead of setting up a level playing field and allowing people to earn their property, Barney and Co. decided to just bypass all that earning stuff and give it to as many as they could. The result was that maybe as much as 10% were given something they could not deal with and since they had little to nothing invested in it, they didn't care all that much about trying to fight for it.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
You Are Right,
Submitted by Comrade Jim on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 4:05pm.
I was being too brief about a big subject by just saying the politicians want to run a political economy. By that I meant some kind of socialism where politicians are by definition "in the game" writing the rules and skimming the money without having to run a business, create wealth, or contribute anything of value to the country.
But Krugman want's to divorce cause from effect.
Submitted by c5then on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 12:04pm.
The tax cuts were a significant part of the cause for the economy rebounding and growing for such a prolonged period. Krugman want's to pretend that the economic boom would have happened without them and then proceeds to calculate how much more revenue the government would have recieved if they hadn't happened.
It is a false premise.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
"It pains me to defend him,
Submitted by ckc1227 on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 3:18pm.
"It pains me to defend him, but its clear Krugman was talking about the Bush tax cuts for everyone, not just for the wealthy"
So when he said "the bulk of the cuts went to a small, affluent minority", he was really talking about the tax cuts for everyone? Sure he was, lol.
Krugman Has Moved So Far Into Loony Left Territory
Submitted by Comrade Jim on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:36am.
That he is becoming an embarrassment even to the ordinary nutty left. He really belongs in the MSNBC Zoo.
Here is my rough, tentative classification with some sample, penciled-in names:
Bill and Hillary, FDR, LBJ,..........ordinary left
Ried, Pelosi, Durbin,...................stupid left
Obama & Company.....................far left
Kucinich, Boxer, Sharpton,.........nutty left
MSNBC Talkers...........................loony left
So I would say Krugman has moved from nutty left to loony left.
Corrections and additions are welcome.
Blame Bush
Submitted by Blorg on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:42am.
So the "Blame Bush" meme continues. Will banging the "Blame Bush" drum get louder and more persistent as the 2012 elections approach?
Budget surplus when ...
Submitted by SentryDan on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:53am.
Budget surplus when Clinton left office? That just didn't exist. If you look at the government's own numbers, they show that the moneys were moved from the public debt to Intra-government holdings. (See the article at the following site; http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16)
The dems can claim whatever they want, but the facts speak for themselves. And of course, we know that the dems can't be bothered with the facts. That just doesn't fit their agenda.
Remember folks, FREEDOM isn't Free. It is bought with the blood and sacrifice of the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces.
Noel.. Krugman - Baker
Submitted by Gary Hall on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 12:16pm.
You know I would do this..
No no no! First there was the fallout from the Dot.Com crash of March 2000.
If one takes the proper starting point in the conversation of where the deficits came from - specifically in the analysis of when and why did the "Clinton era" surpluses (and the $5 Trillion in projected surpluses) go poof, I propose that Krugman, et all, would be scrambling to make their lie believed, even by the gullible.
Dot.com (Enron) Bubble excess went poop in March of 2000 - long before Bush had his party's nomination for the 2000 presidential race.
On Jan. 16, 2009, CNN's Fareed Zakaria, summed up what Krugman, Pelosi and the MSM have been trying to convince the broad electorate of, for the past 6 years or so (my bold):
Yes, there were many reasons for this - but the "lions share of this had little to do with the Bush Stimulus (tax cuts).
One will note that the time frame here, "by the spring of 2002," would be somewhere in the range of only 13-15 months from the time that Bush had replaced Clinton; most of that still under Clinton's last budget. No one would call Zakaria out on this. Zakaria's want to go to radical extremes in pushing Krugman and Pelosi's lies is a clue that none of them are interested in anything other than out-lying each other.
Yes, there was a $128 billion year-end budget surplus for 2001. But, by the end of fiscal year 2003, it had shifted to a walloping $378 billion defiict.
And yes, there was that Iraq War -- oops, wait. That didn't start until March of 2003, and thru the end of 2003 the cost for that was a mere $54 billion.
The shift in fortunes, from projected surpluses to realized deficits thru year-end 2003, was roughly $1.3 Trillion.
Of that amount, legislative tax cuts (stimulus) amounted to roughly $325 billion. Of that amount the first tax cuts on the books, were the 2001 tax rebates; which were pushed into the Bush stimulus package by the likes of Democrats, Dachle, Liebermann and Kucinich (KUCINICH - you see) - which amounted to roughly $40 billion in 2001 and $20. They had wanted $60 billion. Stop - For comparison, consider Obama's almost $900 billion stimulus (inc. tax cuts) effect on deficits compared to Bush's from 2001 to 2003.
Now - for the record, Krugman (who has argued that the Clinton era surpluses were bad) understands the 2000 dot.com crash and it's effect on the economy:
Progressive/Socialist economist Dean Baker, of CEPR was clear on the Clinton economic record:
And Baker, in a personal note to me, back in 2002, laid out what we all should easily understand:
So.. here's the starting point. Bush was handed an economy (not to mention 9/11), which was entirely responsible for the disappearance of the projected surpluses. Whether, or not, Bush, the Republicans or the Democrats in Congress added this, or that, much to it is not of much value in the discussion of what happened.
On that point alone (Bush blew the surpluses -turning them into massive deficits in 1, 2 or 3 yeras), Paul Krugman, Fareed Zarakia, Nancy Pelosi (the Dem party, in tow), and almost every talking and writing member of our national MSM, has repeatedly lied to the American public - the taxpayers - the voters - us all.
The remainder of the story from 2004 to 2009 is indeed interesting - a different discussion (Noel nails it); however the starting point for what Bush did or did not do, begins with the fact that he inherited a mess from the Clinton years.
Historical fact. It mattered not who was president in 2001, for by 2003, the deficits were destined to be huge. If one asked Krugman that question (and no one in the MSM will), he'd be forced to say, "Well yes, of course that is true."
(;~/ gary
We are still in the
Submitted by Zippy on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 2:11pm.
We are still in the Clinton-Gore depression. They ran the surplus in the ground before they stole various things from the White House......
As usual, well-put, Gary.
Submitted by Roger the Shrubber on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 8:32am.
As usual, well-put, Gary.
Blame Game
Submitted by Garlock on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 12:59pm.
The mistake I see Krugman made was to write, "the bulk" instead of "a bulk." The bulk would signify 50%+ of the cuts; a bulk could mean 18% of the cuts, which is what went to the "rich." However, I still don't see how that invalidates his argument: 18% of the money went to a 2% sliver of the population, whereas 82% of the money was to be divided up among the other 98%. And think to yourselves, which group needed more money? Which group would be more likely to spend the money?
Secondly, Mr. Sheppard, Krugman was not blaming the deregulation on Bush (at least not explicitly) as you so claim. As you mention, the two major pieces of financial deregulation were enacted by Clinton. Yet, as several members of this site love to explain, the President only plays a partial role in legislation as it is Congress who creates and passes it and should be more to blame. You even mention it yourself, Mr. Sheppard: "It is also deplorable to discuss budget deficits without once mentioning that the major cause of the current imbalance is a 41 percent increase in spending since the Democrats took over Congress in 2007." Wait a second, who was President in 2007 again?
In the case of the two deregulation acts you mention, there was a full Republican Congress under Clinton during the passage of those two acts. So who's to blame again?
Finally, I'd like to refer to something Mr. Gary Hall talks about in the post above:
"So.. here's the starting point. Bush was handed an economy (not to mention 9/11), which was entirely responsible for the disappearance of the projected surpluses."
"[...]however the starting point for what Bush did or did not do, begins with the fact that he inherited a mess from the Clinton years.
Historical fact. It mattered not who was president in 2001, for by 2003, the deficits were destined to be huge."
Yes, Bush inherited a bad economy. So did Obama! The key difference is that Bush's inherited recession was very mild compared to Obama's inherited recession. Yet, that doesn't stop conservatives, including several on this site, from dissolving any blame from Bush for "destined deficits" while simultaneously hounding on Obama for "extravagant spending" and "sky-high deficits and debt" that are entirely his fault. Some Republicans were even blaming Obama for the recession before he was even elected President or took office!
Parser Game
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 1:20pm.
How many bulks make up a whole? Is it more than three? Less than ten?
Garlock.. politics is a dirty business..
Submitted by Gary Hall on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:30pm.
Garlock.. politics is a dirty business..
Paul Krugman is a Nobel prize winning economist.
Leaving out the rhetoric from a few loud and partisan politicians and pundits and even bloggers, on both side of the isle for a moment here, where is the national media that is supposed to serve as a watchdog for the audience - for the taxpayer?
Where is the national media that challenges the Krugman's, the Schultz's, the Brian Wiliams, the Fareed Zakaria's, the Nancy Pelosi's, etc. on their dangerous and terribly dishonest misrepresentations on the economy?
Remember - the bottom line here at NB is about Media Bias. Our national media should be out there ripping Paul Krugman to shreds tonight. Instead, if they say anything at all, other than sending each other e-mails, "Hey Katie - did you read Krugman's column today? Can you use it tonight(?)" they'll have Krugman on for an interview fawning on his misrepresentation of history.
(;~/ gary
PS - I stand behind my points; and of course Noel's. It's a crying shame that the country has not been privy to the conversation.
Well
Submitted by mel21221 on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 1:14pm.
Krugman is a liar and the NYT is fish wrap - oh, and how is that rag doing financially? Hmmmm?
Crapman said this,"Similarly,
Submitted by jdhawk on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 1:59pm.
Crapman said this,"Similarly, Mr. Bush chose to invade Iraq because that was something he and his advisers wanted to do, not because Americans were clamoring for war against a regime that had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact, it took a highly deceptive sales campaign to get Americans to support the invasion, and even so, voters were never as solidly behind the war as America’s political and pundit elite.:
Well, OK. But, if that is true then why hasn't there been even one bill authored by a leftist to end funding for the any of the wars that American is presently engaged in? Why hasn't there been any bill authored by a leftist to reduce defense spending? Why hasn't there been any bill authoried by a leftist to reduce or eliminate non-defense spending to the countries in the region.
While President Bush was in office, none of the above happended. In fact, quite the opposite. Funding in all three areas soared. Then, following the 2008 elections, the leftist had complete control of the congress and the presdiency, yet none of the above happened. Here we are in 2011, and again, non of the above has happened.
The above talk and actions are at opposites. This is just like deficit spending. It was derided as it is today by crapman, this president (when he was a senator and then, a candidate), the leftest in the media and congress. Yet, in the month of March, alone, we had a deficit that exceeded the entire year of 2007's deficit and we heard bumpkus from the above people and groups.
The dishonesty starts with the leftists in congress and for the last two years in the WH and is swore to by the lamestream media. It is a sad, but true story.
Meanwhile, the country continues the way of Greece - ruination - every deeper in debt with nothing being done about it.
We need to put this bunch in retirement. Vote for conservatives in 2012!
Gary Hall. I remember the
Submitted by Zippy on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 2:17pm.
Gary Hall.
I remember the CBO. Handing out a new report. New Congress-New report.
The Clinton-Gore surplus was gone before 1-20-2001.
This sticks in my mind. Because where do you lose 5 trillion dollars???????
CBO said the previous report was mostly accounting tricks.
Wow.
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 2:22pm.
I know a lot of accounting tricks, but I surely don't know how to disappear $5,000,000,000,000.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Garlock, Bush's downturn was
Submitted by inquiringmind on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 2:29pm.
Garlock, Bush's downturn was mild? Let's see, the Dot Com bubble burst and the stock market too a major hit. Virtuall all technology spending leading up to Y2K stopped on a dime when things didn't implode.
That spending and the growth in the market were the main drivers of the 90's. A little over a year later 9/11 happened and ALL commerce stopped while we grounded our entire airfleet. From peak to trough the market fell roughly 50% after 9/11.
Not insignificant. Bush's answer was to put money into everyone's hands by lowering taxes and to encourage business.
Obama's answer is to stimulate the ecomony by giving the "bulk" of the stimulis money to the unions.
Bush's answer worked, Obama's... well the jury is still out but it dosen't look good.
Inquiringmind
Submitted by Garlock on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 3:16am.
I know the 2001 recession had some damaging effects, but yes it was mild.
"The latest recession, it turns out, is even worse than previously reported. And the 2001 downturn that plagued the job market for years? It now barely registers as a sustained contraction in economic output.
The 2001 recession registers as even less of a contraction when measured over the full course of the downturn. From the fourth quarter of 2000 to the third quarter of 2001, real GDP increased by 0.1% under the revised figures due to a smaller contraction in investment spending. The earlier estimate showed it dropping 0.2%"
Also, I'm pretty sure that "ALL commerce" wasn't stopped while airfleets were grounded. Otherwise the economy would, you know, cease to function. Does anyone remember that happening? Didn't think so.
I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from when you say, "From peak to trough the market fell roughly 50% after 9/11." Here's a picture of the DJIA over the last century. It shows that the peak, in 2000, was roughly 11500. The trough, in 2003, was roughly 8000. This is a difference of 3500, which represents a 30% net fall, and 30% is definitely not 50%.
"Obama's answer is to stimulate the ecomony by giving the "bulk" of the stimulis money to the unions."' Your evidence of that is... what exactly?
Again, I never said the recession Bush inherited was insignificant, I just said it was mild compared to the one Obama inherited.
LIAR
Submitted by ohio granny on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 3:05pm.
What is wrong with just calling liars like Krugman, LIARS?????????????????
Krugman is a buffoon, his
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 3:47pm.
Krugman is a buffoon, his understanding of economics is only slightly better than obama's. Neither one could balance a checkbook. Krugman hasn't been right about anything yet.
From a surplus to a deficit
Submitted by alvin on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 4:12pm.
In 2001, the Congressional Budget Office expected that the federal government would run an annual surplus of $800 billion or so in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. Now it projects more than a trillion dollars in deficits. What happened? What accounts for the change?
. The answers, in descending order, are the downturn in the economy (37 percent of the change), the policies passed by George W. Bush (33 percent), the extension of policies passed by George W. Bush (20 percent), the stimulus bill (7 percent), and the rest of Barack Obama's agenda (3 percent).
alvin
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 4:53pm.
To be technical, the policies passed by George W. Bush, AND a democratic Congress.
Hey chipmonk.............................
Submitted by old cro on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 2:43am.
Who writes your stuff? Do you spend your time making this stuff up? Or do you use other nutcases work and repeat their insane musings?
Noel, you neglected to
Submitted by Reaver on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 5:03pm.
Noel, you neglected to mention this is the same guy who asked “How can voters be so ill informed?”
It's not the first time that
Submitted by jessieH on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 9:18pm.
It's not the first time that "propaganda Krugman" & the N.Y. Times has lied to the American people, but it is getting close to the last time they do.