We dealt with massive debt in the past with minimal problem. All we have to do again is make sure that there's a world war that leaves us completely untrammelled and devastates every other industrial country in the world, leaving us virtually the sole remaining purveyor of every product needed or desired throughout the world. That worked last time.

Krugman:

Quote:

So why the sudden ubiquity of deficit scare stories? It isn’t being driven by any actual news.

Are you kidding me? A 1.6T deficit isn't real? Or News?

He's much worse than an idiot, he's a pathological liar and he knows better.

I can't help myself, but have to add another quote from Krugman.

Quote:

If anything, deficits should be bigger than they are because the government should be doing more than it is to create jobs.

no need to comment....

Can you break that down for me in the graph so its easier for me to read. I was born August 1963 and it looks to me that within a couple of years of that was when spending ramped up and has went parabolic since then. I just cant read the graph for subsequent years accurately because its covers too many years. If you can't generate it easily no big deal.

Now wait as lower interest rate structures are destroying pension funds which are the future for our retirees is it any wonder why foreign governments are enabling our deficit spending through low interest rates? Or am I being GPI (geo-politically incorrect)?

Here's his email link? These people always think their right and your wrong.


Link in the middle

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/ed....

What is so infuriating about this clown, well one of many things, is he has this position advocating massive increase in deficit spending and social spending. Yet he never ever admits to the possibility of that increasing interest rates or triggering a bond market event. Not only that in this piece he relies on absurd Obama projections about GDP in 10 yrs to dismiss concern over debt maintenance. It is criminal, as if he has gone senile and can't use a calculator. But he isn;t senile and CAN use a calculator, so any clown could tell you there is MASSIVE risk in running multi-T's worth of years of deficit spending, and then assuming rates remain low.

I guess I'm saying I would actually listen to him if he could realistically present a downside risk to his proposals, but he won't so I view him as being as irresponsible as the wall st. geniuses during the RE/CDS bubble, who thought that by ignoring risk it did not exist.

Thanks for doing this Karl. Deficits are absolutely the result of excess spending, not lack of taxation

Since we are Krugman-bashing, an oldie but goldie from July 2008:

“Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the explosion of high-risk lending a few years ago” and that “they didn’t do any subprime lending.”

ahem....didn't fan-fred buy like 30-40% of the sub-prime paper?

Quote:

Krugman says "Now, as then, dubious allegations, not backed by hard evidence, are being reported as if they have been established beyond a shadow of a doubt. Now, as then, much of the political and media establishments have bought into the notion that we must take drastic action quickly, even though there hasn’t been any new information to justify this sudden urgency.

Krugman tries to diss on Bush, but for a minute there I thought he was describing the events surrounding the TARP bailout legislation - the legislation he and Obama supported sight unseen.

Maybe what he implied was spending growth has not really gone up that much, via new programs, as much as the costs of bailouts and reduced tax revenues?
Sounds like the stimuli has been more like state bailouts, than anything else.

Remember, you can't win an argument with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience :)

What do you expect from someone who aggitated IN FAVOUR of a housing bubble in 2001-2002?

"The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn’t a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."
- http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinio....

"That is, I’ve always believed that a speculative bubble need not lead to a recession, as long as interest rates are cut quickly enough to stimulate alternative investments. But I had to face the fact that speculative bubbles usually are followed by recessions. My excuse has been that this was because the policy makers moved too slowly — that central banks were typically too slow to cut interest rates in the face of a burst bubble, giving the downturn time to build up a lot of momentum. That was why I, like many others, was frustrated at the smallish cut at the last Federal Open Market Committee meeting: I was pretty sure that Alan Greenspan had the tools to prevent a disastrous recession, but worried that he might be getting behind the curve.

However, let’s give credit where credit is due: Mr. Greenspan has cut rates since then. And while some of us may have been urging him to move even faster, the Fed’s four interest-rate cuts since the slowdown became apparent represent an unusually aggressive response by historical standards. It’s still not clear that Mr. Greenspan has caught up with the curve — let’s have at least one more rate cut, please — but the interest-rate cuts do, cross your fingers, seem to be having an effect." - http://www.pkarchive.org/column/5201.htm....

To understand keynesians you need to understand that they purport to solve the boom and bust by removing the bust and simply keeping the boom going forever.

Here's a short excerpt from Keynes'General theory: "The remedy for the boom is not a higher rate of interest but a lower rate of interest! For that may enable the boom to last. The right remedy for the trade cycle is not to be found in abolishing booms and thus keeping us permanently in a semi-slump; but in abolishing slumps and thus keeping us permanently in a quasi-boom."

You can see this insanity in context on page 293 on the google books preview: http://books.google.com/books?id=dQD9o31....

Liberal Idiocy......redundant???

Well in the last fiscal year, personal income taxes were down 280 Billion, and Corporate income tax receipts were down 128 Billion.

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0909.pdf

while the deficit went to -1,417,121 Millions from -454,798 Millions.

So in a sense Krugman is correct while missing the increasing debt picture.

They already increased spending 500 Billion in the last fiscal year.

They are just not increasing it that much above that base, ignoring FRB support operations etc.

Once the Feds are in for Fannie, Freddie, AIG etc, Krugman must think the losses are limited.

Santelli on Krugmans article

"That didn't even make it to the bottom of the birdcage"

****'n A TM you beat me to it

Thanks Santelli, just spit coffee across the monitor

I got me a little chuckle too. I like Rick's snide comments better than his rants. They're both good though.

****ing Santelli - now I need a new keyboard. ******n it.

Gen - you're always needing new keyboards. You need to buy em in bulk.

Well **** people need to cut that **** out or I need to ban drinks from my workspace.... that was ****ing espresso too.

http://shops.godaddy.com/ANTOnline/USB-C....

10 for $126

When is Santelli gonna hang with the TF? C'mon Rick. Get onboard.