George Will Proposes 'Krugman Election': 'Resolved - Government Is Too Frugal. Let's Vote'
George Will and Paul Krugman had another great debate Sunday about the role of government spending in stimulating the economy.
As the New York Times columnist predictably whined about the need for more federal spending not less, ABC's lone conservative said on "This Week," "It would be good to go to the electorate and have a Krugman election this time, saying: resolved, the government is too frugal - let's vote" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: The first thing is, we shouldn't -- you know, from -- from the perspective of a rational person -- in other words, a progressive on this stuff -- we shouldn't be even talking about spending cuts at all now. We have 9 percent unemployment. These spending cuts are going to worsen unemployment. That's not even -- it's even going to hurt the long-run fiscal picture, because we have a situation where more and more people are becoming permanent long-term unemployed. And if you have a situation in which you're going to permanently raise the unemployment rate, which is what this is going to do, that's actually going to reduce future revenues.
So this -- this thing -- these spending cuts are even going to hurt the long-run fiscal position, let alone cause lots of misery. And then on top of that...
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: Well, you...
KRUGMAN: ... we've got these budget cuts, which are entirely -- basically the Republicans said we'll blow up the world economy unless you give us exactly what we want, and the president said, OK. That's what happened.
AMANPOUR: You know, you've been consistent about this, saying that there should be no cuts at a time of recession and weak recovery. What is your scenario, though, once this goes through and there are significant spending cuts and no revenues?
KRUGMAN: We're looking. I mean, we used to talk about the Japanese and their lost decade. We're going to look to them as a role model. They did better than we're doing. We're -- this is going to go on -- I have nobody I know who thinks that the unemployment rate is going to be below 8 percent at the end of next year.
With the spending cuts, it might well be above 9 percent at the end of next year. There is no light at the end of this tunnel. And all the -- we're having a debate in Washington which is all about, gee, we're going to make this economy worse, but are we going to make it worse on 90 percent the Republicans' terms or 100 percent the Republicans' terms? And the answer is 100 percent.
GEORGE WILL: Paul's right. We are a third of the way through a lost decade, but we're a third of the way after TARP, the stimulus, Cash for Clunkers, dollars for dishwashers, cash for caulkers, the entire range of stimulus, the Keynesian approach, which, by its own evidence, simply hasn't worked. Now Paul says double down.
KRUGMAN: Can I just say -- in advance, one important point is to make that -- is that people like me said in advance this wasn't remotely big enough. It's not an after the fact. It's not coming back afterwards. Right from the beginning, we looked -- I looked at the numbers, people like me looked at the numbers, said we have -- we're going to have huge cutbacks at the state and local level. You've got a federal increase which is going to be barely enough to limit those cutbacks. There is going to be no net fiscal stimulus, if you look at government as a whole, which is what happened.
WILL: And it...
KRUGMAN: So here we are.
WILL: It would be good to go to the election -- electorate and have a Krugman election this time, saying: resolved - the government is too frugal. Let's vote.
Since 2007, annual federal spending has increased by 41 percent while the debt has grown by $5.6 trillion or 64 percent. During this time, unemployment rose from 4.4 percent to 9.2 percent.
And idiots like Krugman think spending more will solve the problem.
Even worse, idiots like the folks that produce ABC's "This Week" continue to invite him on their program to repeat such nonsense.
Why?
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Why?
Submitted by Chris Norman on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 2:24am.
Maybe because Krugman is one of the top true believers that Keynesian economics will actually work? That, even though it's painfully obvious that Keynesian policies have devastated, rather than helped, the already shattered economy, he's the true liberal brazenly crazy enough to call for "More power!" - despite the protests that the engines will blow up? That he's the "expert" who still gives "credence" (albeit threadbare) to the lies the liberal media truly want to believe - in the face of all the damning evidence? Just a guess.
What cuts in spending? This
Submitted by jdhawk on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 1:59am.
What cuts in spending? This fiscal year, 2011, the House was able to get 30 billion in cuts, but when all is said in done, it will only be 9 billion out of a 3.8 trillion dollar budget of which 1.6 trillion will be borrowed.
This so-called "deal" will back end the entire 2.4 trillion so that this next fiscal year, 2012, will only see tens of billions of cuts if at all. Meanwhile, due to baseline budgeting the entire federal budget will grow well beyond any cuts even with the now touted $2.4 trillion that this "deal" supposes will take cut.
By the way, the word "cut" needs to be stricken from these talks of budgets. There never has been nor will there ever be actual cuts. There will be a slowing down of the maw that is the federal government.
This "deal" give us less than 18 months until the debt ceiling will have to be raised again. At that time we will be at 120% of GDP in debt. The next tranche and there will be another one will take us to 140% of GDP.
The whole exercise has been a waste of time. The House needs to make deals on the current fiscal year only. Stop this BS of 10 year budgets. Never in the history of our country has a ten year buget been carried out. This one won't either.
re: previous cuts-wasn't even that much
Submitted by dmacleo on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:58am.
iirc after true figures were used was 500 M or so wasn't it?
Well, the House Repubs have cracked open the champagne...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 2:15am.
and are toasting their victory. "Obama completely caved", chortles Boehner, no doubt fighting back tears of joy.
Meanwhile, over in the Senate, McConnell has giddily announced that this has sealed Obama's defeat in 2012.
And, you know, they're absolutely right.
Jer
Politcal Fatigue
Submitted by Chris Norman on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 2:23am.
Democrat or Republican, the leaders of the "DC Party" think they've each saved their own butts again - for maybe, oh, five minutes? You know what, Jer? I'm so sick and tired of the whole damned thing that I wish they'd all just go away and leave everyone else the hell alone for a while. That's the way I'm feeling tonight.
Chris, I said the same thing
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:31am.
Chris, I said the same thing in another thread last night just before I went to bed....I'm sick of the lot of them.
In that same comment, I also said what jdhawk says above: every single "10-year cut" will be right back on the table for next year's budget. It's a crock. I don't know WHY they talk about cuts over 10 years...it's a big smoke-and-mirrors game.
And I was right: things don't look any better this morning.
UPDATE: I did find a glimmer of sunshine this morning:
Eat Those Peas, Mr. President
Maybe someone could explain it?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:44am.
I've been trying to find simple explanations of what's going on, maybe someone could tell me, but I'm not seeing the bright side to all this. I might be missing it due to my waking up early this morning. (want to get some stuff done early before it gets really hot today, forecast calls for 105)
I do agree that this 10 year nonsense is just that, nonsense, which is kind of ironic because Representatives get elected every 2 years, Senators every 6, and potus every 4 years. (don't try to make too much sense of that if someone doesn't get that, like I said, it's early in the morning)
I don't even know from all this if there were spending cuts, the debt ceiling is suggested to go up, or taxes not going up. And they are trying to get this done before Soetoro can go on Ramadan. Oh I'm sorry, his 50th birthday which was next week three weeks ago.
So in my mind, nothing significant got accomplished with all this nonsense.
-Jon
Terms I could finally understand
Submitted by boscokraft on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 8:02pm.
Im stealing this info from another website, but it puts this complex issue in terms I can understand; If the USA was a family our financial situation would look something like this (numbers are approximate):
Our Annual income: $21,700.00
Our annual Expenditures $38,000.00
Our Credit Card Charges: (our debt) $145,000.00
What this bill is cutting $385.00
When you see it from this perspective, we are in serious trouble. Now we are going to have National healthcare??? We are heading for default. I've come to the conclusion, that if we are really serious about getting out of this mess, we need to do everything. Across the board cuts in social security and medicare. Cut the military budget. Institute a national tax on food, with the proceeds going to pay down the debt. Tax the lower 50% who pay nothing now. Charge corporations that trade on the major exchanges a fee (or Tax if you like) for being able to do business in the US. Everybody has to suffer and contribute to solving this problem
Jer
Submitted by well99 on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 2:38am.
I will believe that when I read the fine print.
George Will looks
Submitted by killa37 on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 2:32am.
George Will looks calm..........makes sense..........knows what is going on. Crudman is a friggin' loony toon, both physically and mentally.............this guy has some kind of Nobel prize??? But since he does.............he's under the impression that he knows what he's talking about!!!
killa37
Submitted by well99 on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 2:41am.
The Nobel prize is given to anyone left of Karl Marx and the common sense of a pet rock.Krugman proves that.
Get it right next time
Submitted by Franksam on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:15am.
Many like Paul believe that communism hasn't worked only because it just hasn't been done correctly,
Krugman is a Gerbil With a Bad Beard
Submitted by Motormouth KOS on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:58am.
It is simply amazing to hear this "expert" tout what Japan did. The prevailing wisdom on Japan, was that they tried to spend their way out of a recession and did what....?
FAILED MISERABLY!!!
The Obamination... A crisis leading to a catastrophe..(please donate to MRC)
when Krugman interrupted George Will, I wish...
Submitted by Red Jeep on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 8:20am.
...Mr Will had not been so polite. Mr. Will should have turned to Krugman and yelled, "SHUT THE HELL UP!"
Paul Krugman is a joke
Submitted by CT on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 10:32am.
I just can't take serious any news & views program that includes Paul Krugman in any capacity.
Krugman is NO idiot. I spent
Submitted by walkman on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 11:10am.
Krugman is NO idiot. I spent a lot of time studying his macro and international economics in grad school. I don't know if his Nobel was deserved, but it was no joke.
But, he is clearly a tool for the left. That is why he signed on to the NYT and these other such roundtables. His job is to carry the water for the left and he enjoys it. Even when he knows what he says is pure B.S.
Wait a
Submitted by killa37 on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 12:22pm.
Wait a minute...................he KNOWS what he's saying is pure BS??? But he's NOT an idiot??? In my view, a fool is someone who DOES believe in what they are saying, even if it's wrong............kinda like Boy Barry. If Crudman is spewing this dreck, but doesn't believe it...............well, there's got to be some kind of word to describe it.
Interpolation?
Submitted by Dave81 on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 12:26pm.
Krugman said that what we've spent so far hasn't been enough, and we need to spend more to fix things. If spending more should fix lots of things, should what we've spent so far have fixed SOME things? But it hasn't, it's just made things worse. Why are we supposed to believe that this curve is supposed to turn around and start moving upward as the spending increases?
"Cash for caulkers" and "dollars for dishwashers"...
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 1:50pm.
...haven't heard those...good ones, George.
You didn't see Barry Villa in
Submitted by killa37 on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 2:54pm.
You didn't see Barry Villa in some Home Depot (maybe not HD, since they are 'big business') with a hardhat and safety goggles and a caulking gun??? I'm in the construction business.............I was cracking up!!!!
I don't know about the dishwashers, but with this REGIME, I'll believe just about anything.
Why does Krugman continue to show up on the networks?
Submitted by Rush Fan on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 4:33am.
Because he is the ultimate authority on economics. After all, Krugman is a Nobel Prize Winner. For example, take CNN's Piers Morgan. Today on Piers Morgan Tonight, Morgan was arguing with Republican Congressman Connie Mack regarding the lack of tax increases in the proposed debt ceiling negotiations. Here is a portion of that argument:
MORGAN: The problem is, any sensible economist around the world says you cannot get America out of this catastrophic debt it's now in without raising taxation. Yet you're impeccably opposed to this.
MACK: Well, again, I mean I've been saying that if all economists -- I don't think that's correct. I mean there are plenty of economists who say if you were to raise taxes right now, you would kill any kind of growth that we might be having.
Look, we've got a problem in this country and that is --
MORGAN: But we're not having any.
MACK: Yes, and why is because of overregulation and too much taxation. So what we should be doing is lowering taxes and then making sure that we cut spending. I don't know who the economists are that you're talking to, but most people would agree that if you want businesses to create jobs --
(CROSSTALK)
MORGAN: Well, why we don't start -- Congressman, why don't we start --
MACK: And business -- wait a second, wait a second. Business want to create jobs because that's how they make more money. If they want to do that you don't tax them more, you tax them less.
MORGAN: I'm sure you've heard of Paul Krugman, for example. He won a Nobel Prize for economics.