Krugman Flies into a Krugmanical Rage over the Government Shutdown
Abstract: Paul Krugman of the New York Times plods along with his never-ending pleas and threats about tax cuts or spending cuts or both. He has never taken a position in any form of government truncation even though we are going broke. Our debt will surpass 15 trillion dollars by Dec, 2011 and our economy will crash in debt and inflation. Apart from all this, he maintains his wooden stance that we cannot cut anything and resorts to demonization and ridicule of Republicans on any and all matters of cutting government or spending or both. He refuses to acknowledge that tax cuts lead to higher growth thus more tax revenues despite the evidence from JFK and RWR. He incessantly argues for big government at the expense of the economy and well-being of our citizens. He insists that: for the nation as a whole to spend its way out of debt is the only path forward. He supported President Obama and his 9 trillion dollar spending scheme in 2009 without reservation and justified the total future debt with his own phony numbers and predictions. His only and eternal message is just spend more and ignore the debt.
The word tautological must be expanded in scope and depth to accommodate most of the hackneyed scribbles and coached mental gyrations of the near-financially bankrupt[1] New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers.[2][3] To suggest that there is but a short stack of soiled, but politically sanctified clichés, to guide the ‘writers’ in their written works in the Opinion section of this ragzine is to offer too much latitude to those who are intellectually and morally chained in such a narrow media latrine. Words like drone or stooge must be intercalated with the revised context of tautology to describe what passes for thought in this section. Much of the content of the opinion op-eds of the
Some people crank out platitudes soaked in emotion, hate, threats and ridicule like a Hurdy-gurdy[4][5] grinder with but a single song, some severely worn and rusty pegs on the cylinder and a bucket of tears. Today, the author of this piece soars into the stratosphere in a mystical and theatrical krugmanical recital matched only the last act of Macbeth mixed in with the hysterical rants of Rachel Carson. Today, we are amused by the complete lack of coherent thought given to this rant by Paul Krugman, disguised as an economist as he turns the crank on his Hurdy-gurdy.
How to best read my blogs:
[I offer extensive quotes in this blog so that the reader can view the exact language and can be confident that nothing was taken out of context or that nobody was misquoted. The easiest way to take in the salient points is to read the emphatic points in the quotes and then peruse my comments. Comments on my comments are always welcome: ryckki@gmail.com.]
The grand unveiling of the current economic masterpiece by Paul Krugman:
“Many commentators swooned earlier this week after House Republicans, led by the Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan, unveiled their budget proposals. They lavished praise on Mr. Ryan, asserting that his plan set a new standard of fiscal seriousness.”[6]--Ludicrous and Cruel By Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist Published:
Properly inauguration of this screed with defined facts is a stale but acceptable method of initiating a propaganda piece. The
Continuing right along:
“Well, they should have waited until people who know how to read budget numbers had a chance to study the proposal. For the G.O.P. plan turns out not to be serious at all. Instead, it’s simultaneously ridiculous and heartless.” Ludicrous and Cruel By Paul Krugman
Typical emotional effluence by the Times. This second paragraph entices to reader to experience the ecstasy and exhilaration of new information about some subject or factoid that was ignored by the enemy. We can now tell you the truth we read. Sure. The Republicans cannot read budget numbers! They are mired in ignorance and are now members of the shallow ignoranti.
Grinding away on the old song:
“First, Republicans have once again gone all in for voodoo economics — the claim, refuted by experience, that tax cuts pay for themselves.
Specifically, the Ryan proposal trumpets the results of an economic projection from the Heritage Foundation, which claims that the plan’s tax cuts would set off a gigantic boom. Indeed, the foundation initially predicted that the G.O.P. plan would bring the unemployment rate down to 2.8 percent — a number we haven’t achieved since the Korean War. After widespread jeering, the unemployment projection vanished from the Heritage Foundation’s Web site, but voodoo still permeates the rest of the analysis.” Ludicrous and Cruel By Paul Krugman
Unfortunately, we are not privy to this. Why not just save the page for us or quote it here and get it out to the loyal? It was probably a mistake anyway. But, more important, here is the chance to insert Elder Bush’s criticism of Ronald Reagan as every leftist is required to do and in nearly every paragraph. Nobody is promising low unemployment rates in this or perhaps the next decade.
“In particular, the original voodoo proposition — the claim that lower taxes mean higher revenue — is still very much there. The Heritage Foundation projection has large tax cuts actually increasing revenue by almost $600 billion over the next 10 years.” Ludicrous and Cruel By Paul Krugman
Here, we are battered with the central criticism of the right wing in their insistence, demonstrated several times, that tax cuts actually produce more tax revenues from growth. Notice the unnecessary repeats on the voodoo word. This signals desperation and rightly so in his case. The House threatens to defund a lot of Marxism in the near future and the left is surging ballistic and bouncing off all the walls.
Facts: The Reagan Tax Cuts brought the following:
“HOW DID THE REAGAN TAX CUTS AFFECT THE
Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the
Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.
As a percentage of the gross domestic product (
Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.
In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase. [from a previous blog with references]
His assertions that dispute this are patently false:
Now, there is a theory to describe the optimal tax rate for maximizing revenues and that is the Laffer Curve.[9] Here is a video on the process.[10][11] This is not accepted by liberals and an alternative scheme known as ‘dynamic scoring’ is preferred by the left. [12] They assume that tax levels have no effect on the revenues.[13]The left point to the percentage decline in federal taxes as a fraction of the new higher
So, nothing is new here and the same old platitudes are raised from the soggy ashes and used to refute the notion that we are going bankrupt and government spending needs to be severely cut.
But, Krugman is not finished:
“A more sober assessment from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office tells a different story. It finds that a large part of the supposed savings from spending cuts would go, not to reduce the deficit, but to pay for tax cuts. In fact, the budget office finds that over the next decade the plan would lead to bigger deficits and more debt than current law.” Ludicrous and Cruel By Paul Krugman
Krugman ends his krugmanical rant with emotion, invective and sleaze:
“So the pundits who praised this proposal when it was released were punked. The G.O.P. budget plan isn’t a good-faith effort to put
Here is the Real Krugman in his own words:
As is tautologically universal in the Paul Krugman essays[14] his propaganda pieces frequently begin with a conundrum and broadcast the urgent need for the expedition for the ‘facts’ so the guilty can readily be identified. The solutions, as always, depend on higher taxes and more government and this harangue habitually pacifies the local left liberal to the point of boredom for the reason that they are already part of the game and know the score.
Here are Krugman’s own demands to solving the economy:
Caca Ex Cathedra:
“Austerity is self-defeating: when everyone tries to pay down debt at the same time, the result is depression and deflation, and debt problems grow even worse. And conversely, it is possible — indeed, necessary — for the nation as a whole to spend its way out of debt: a temporary surge of deficit spending, on a sufficient scale, can cure problems brought on by past excesses.”[15]--1938 in 2010 By Paul Krugman
Krugman is a simple, mindless Tax Zombie. He has nothing else to offer other than the theft of other people’s money by taxation or confiscation or the more subtle process of cleptocracy. If we were in the height of another Great Depression he would always recommend we raise taxes. Krugman is only defiant on one issue in economics and that is his ongoing crusade against the existence of Tax-cut Zombies.[16] He hates tax cuts. He is always in favor of higher taxes and bigger government. Pick an issue or a product or service and Krugman will advise that we tax it.[17] Tax cuts do NOT spur growth in the economy he thinks. Krugman knows this and acts as if he never read elementary texts on economics or a corporate balance sheet, serious questions. He is not an economist—he is a political operative and a narrow, stogy advocate. His Nobel Prize is a joke from a Marxist Pack of gun and bomb selling losers.[18][19] He can support massive spending of the 9 trillion dollar level with mindless rhetoric:
“What you have to bear in mind is that the economy — and hence the federal tax base — is enormous, too. Right now
We run a current deficit of $1.6 trillion dollars on a 97% debt to
But, the most disturbing element in all this socialist fluff is the refusal to cut ANY spending in ANY government program or to allow ANY tax breaks for anybody private or corporate. We are now the most hostile place to do business on the globe with the highest corporate tax rates, the most evil and oppressing rules for manufacturing and more. And, the very absence of any reasonable plan [or even a non reasonable one] is showing us that all the liberals have is tax and spend and more taxation and bigger government and more spending. They do not care if we go broke.
The Krugman intermezzo:
Toot1 for new taxes and then blast off a hearty Toot2 for more spending or reverse the theme order with retoots.[22]
We must cut government size and tax revenues to survive.
rycK
Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com
[1] They have been morally bankrupt for decades.
[2] The Babbling Brooks of the
[3] In honor of that celebrated Communist stooge and liar and winner of the Pulitzer Prize for the
“He said that these people had to be "liquidated or melted in the hot fire of exile and labor into the proletarian mass". Duranty claimed that the Siberian labor camps were a means of giving individuals a chance to rejoin Soviet society but also said that for those who could not accept the system, "the final fate of such enemies is death." Duranty, though describing the system as cruel, says he has "no brief for or against it, nor any purpose save to try to tell the truth". He ends the article with the claim that the brutal collectivization campaign which led to the famine was motivated by the "hope or promise of a subsequent raising up" of Asian-minded masses in the
[4] Krugman Ignores the Fact that Obama has Trashed the
http://ryckki.blogspot.com/2010/08/krugman-ignores-fact-that-obama-has.html
[6] Ludicrous and Cruel By PAUL KRUGMAN OP-ED COLUMNIST Published:
[7] Maximizing Both Tax Revenues and Economic Growth: The Folly of Government and the Generation of Phony Numbers and Class Warfare
[8] http://www.grantmoneyadvisor.com/why-did-reagan-have-better-record-on-tax-cuts-th-an-obama-why-do-libs-lie-t23560.html
[13] “The absurdity of this approach became clear in 1988 when Senator Robert Packwood (R-OR), then ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, asked the JCT [Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation[13]] to estimate the revenue impact if the government confiscated all income over $200,000 annually. The revenue estimators at JCT responded that such a tax would raise $104 billion the first year, $204 billion the second year, $232 billion the third year, and $263 billion and $299 billion in the fourth and fifth years, respectively. Needless to say, this was a nonsensical estimate. As Senator Packwood noted, the JCT's calculation "assumes people will work if they have to pay all their money to the Government. They will work forever and pay all of the money to the Government when clearly anyone in their right mind will not.”[13]--The
[14] Krugman Searches for His Own Truth in an Irish Mirror. He Reflects upon the Mirror and Finds Himself as Originator of the Eternal Solution. Tax and Spend.
[15] 1938 in 2010 By Paul Krugman [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.] Published:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/opinion/06krugman.html?src=me&ref=general
Krugman Offers Us Canned Circular Revisionism: We Can Repeat the War Time Successes of FDR.
http://ryckki.blogspot.com/2010/09/krugman-offers-us-canned-circular.html
[16] The Tax-Cut Zombies By PAUL KRUGMAN Op-Ed Columnist Published:
[17] Krugman Explains EcoNazism in the Warmest Terms. Tax Tax Tax
[19] Averting the Worst in Liberalism as Contrasted by Paul Krugman. Tax and Spend our way to Prosperity.
[20] How big is $9 trillion? By Paul Krugman The Conscience of a Liberal,
[22] Krugman Exhausts His Vocabulary by Monotonously Reciting the Only Two Words He Understands In Economics: Tax And Spend. Let’s Tax the Stock Markets!!
No comments:
Post a Comment