Paul Krugman: In Michigan, Romney Gave Away The Game

The New York Times:

According to Michael Kinsley, a gaffe is when a politician accidently tells the truth. That's certainly what happened to Mitt Romney on Tuesday, when in a rare moment of candor -- and, in his case, such moments are really, really rare -- he gave away the game.

Read the whole story: The New York Times

Comments

[Dustee]

10:34 AM on 02/25/2012

Just want to know how would the guest trolls would respond to Krugman.

[jasev01]

02:15 AM on 02/25/2012

sad for liberals which is why they don't want him as the nominee because really he is more left than Obama and can get more done because republics will support their guy making him a better president.  Better if you get Newt or Rick in there.

[Dustee]

10:24 AM on 02/25/2012

Turn RIGHT at the corner to the Drudge report.

[jasev01]

12:16 PM on 02/25/2012

truth hurts, one of their plans had a public option why don't you tell me which one Romney or Obama?

[gerald4]

02:14 PM on 02/24/2012

Professor Krugman believes that the USA can continously borrow money back from the wealth producing foreigners in the foreign industrial nations and then spend that money to create all sorts of additional government bureaucratic jobs for the unemployed, more government contracts to construct all sorts of “Pork Barrel” infrastructure projects, and also increase the government benefits for those US citizens whom the politicians think will vote for those same politicians that pass laws to give those citizens more and more "free" government money.

I believe that US citizens should elect politicians that will work towards RE-INDUSTRIALIZATION of the USA because that will create a bigger economic pie, CREATE MORE (non-government funded) JOBS for US citizens that will create more NATIONAL WEALTH in the USA so that a portion could be CONFISCATED by the governments at various levels as taxation to pay for our ever increasing government expenses such as more infrastructure, more teachers, more firefighters, and maybe to also PAY OFF SOME OR ALL OF THE US NATIONAL DEBT that we are expecting our children to repay to the bondholders.

[billw8017]

03:53 PM on 02/24/2012

Professor Krugman believes no such thing. Keynes spoke strongly against a negative balance of trade. A nation will earn its own way or it will not progress in any way. Keynes did also recommend that a government should run a deficit to pump money into the economy and, thereby, pull out of a recession. This does not mean borrowing since borrowing takes money from the economy and reduces funds for private lending. It does include paying down the debt in more prosperous times so as to maintain balance and stability overall. Aside from the Bush tax cuts, his increase of government spending and his wars, a cause of our current budget deficits is the reduced revenue from his recessionary economy.

Republicans talking against pork barrel spending and federal deficits are very cynical people.

[gerald4]

04:08 PM on 02/24/2012

The International Trade Deficit is the basic structural economic foundation problem that will destroy the US economic miracle because title to US located assets are also leaving the USA to pay for the things that we import in addition to expanding US government expenses.

The US International Trade Deficit must be corrected by any means possible in order to generate more NATIONAL WEALTH in the USA instead of continuing the flow of title to US located assets (privately owned businesses, factories, casinos, hotels, farms, land, ports, refineries, forests, ports, breweries, distilleries, and other NATIONAL WEALTH) leaving the USA to pay for the things that we import from foreign manufacturers, and also to pay for increasing government expenses, such as stimulus for infrastructure expenses that destroys a nation’s NATIONAL WEALTH and does not increase or create any new NATIONAL WEALTH.

[gerald4]

04:43 PM on 02/24/2012

I believe that most people believe in "Pork Barrel Spending", but not with borrowed money!

[userw014]

02:36 PM on 02/25/2012

So, of you believe that we should "... work towards RE-INDUSTRIALIZATION of the USA because that will create a bigger economic pie ...", then you'll agree to change the treatment of taxes such that earnings based on financial games should be taxed heavily (perhaps twice the general rate) in order to favor investment in real infrastructure, products, and services that benefit everyone, rather than in Wall-Street gambling that benefits just a few who don't add value to the economy commensurate with what they rape from it.

[satyrday]

02:04 PM on 02/24/2012

Every Republican is a Keynesian....but only when they get the credit for it.

[billw8017]

03:56 PM on 02/24/2012

Not entirely. Keynes recommended a logical system. Looting the taxpayers is logical enough, but justifying it means saying what ever works in the focus group.

[gtposse]

01:06 PM on 02/24/2012

I posted these comments 2 weeks ago.

I don't know if others have picked up on this but I've noticed that whenever Romney sits down for a one on one interview it appears as if his thoughts are scrambled between Republican talking points and what he truly believes

Case in point, he recently stated in an interview that he agrees that all welfare recepients should be tested for drugs. Off course, this is a position that Republican governors across the country have taken up as a wedge issue so Romney has to fall in line. Romney then went on to say, in that quixotic ramble of his, that anyone who receives "government benefits" should be drug tested. Therefore, under a Romney administration people who receive SSI, Medicare or for that matter any gov't subsidies should be drug tested. He has yet to respond when contacted to clarify his comments

[billw8017]

03:57 PM on 02/24/2012

I do wonder if the banks would have qualified for a bailout if their execs were drug tested...

[RoShaCla]

12:34 PM on 02/24/2012

This all seems like a pretty big leap to make based on one sentence. Squeezing every last drop of blood from the stone, huh?

[thebiggestever]

11:30 AM on 02/24/2012

A liberal, a moderate, a conservative, a Keynesian, an anti-Keynesian, and a supply-sider walk into a bar...

[jack Winn]

11:50 AM on 02/24/2012

LOL!

[billw8017]

04:00 PM on 02/24/2012

The supply sider tries to pay with a rubber check. The anti Keynesian borrows the money in an anti Keynesian way. The liberal, moderate and Keynesian get down on the floor as the conservative draws his gun.

[gerald4]

11:00 AM on 02/24/2012

The US Government must reduce borrowing money and then spending that money on infrastructure improvements and various other free government actiuvities that do not create any new NATIONAL WEALTH.

NATIONAL WEALTH is made, created, and/or acquired mainly (maybe only) when the members of a family (or the citizen businessmen of a nation, city-state, island, tribe, etc.) perform one or more of the following tasks:

1. plant, grow and/or harvest something of commercial value from the earth;

2. extract something of commercial value from the earth;

3. manufacture something of commercial value that is consumable

4. construct a building that is permanently useful for rental income;

5. provide professional services (medical, legal, dental, engineering, architecture, land surveying, technology, accounting, etc.);

6. collect payment for patent and copyright uses;

and if they then trade, sell, lease or rent these items and/or services to parties outside of their family, in return for a net transfer of gold, currency or commodities from other parties outside of their family into their own family, then that family is enriched.

[gerald4]

11:09 AM on 02/24/2012

The members of that family (tribe, city, state, nation) can then reflect the amount of their real NATIONAL WEALTH and financial security with their net positive accumulation of privately owned grain, gold, cattle, jewels, land, buildings, hotels, casinos, factories, commodities and/or other marketable products that are then available to be used for economic security for reserve use in times of emergency, to raise the standard of living for the members of that family, and also be available as collateral (products, commodities and/or title to locally in-country located assets) for any printed currency that they might care to issue and/or any Treasury Bonds that they might care to print and sell.

NATIONAL WEALTH needs to be created by industrious private businessmen (and the Corporations) in any nation because that is almost the ONLY WEALTH AVAILABLE to be CONFISCATED in the form of TAXATION by various levels of government in order to create funds to take care of those that cannot take care of themselves, to build and operate schools, streets, water and sewer systems, repay sovereign national debts, pork barrel projects, green projects, infrastructure projects, wars, streets, bridges, highways, welfare, unemployment, police, courts, prisons, fire fighters, social security and other WEALTH CONSUMING government provided bureaucratic services for that family, tribe, city, state, or nation.

When nations spend more than they collect, they borrow money and obligation future tax collections to repay those loans (actually they print and sell paper Treasury Bonds).

[gerald4]

02:18 PM on 02/24/2012

The US Dollars (electronic credits) and also the freshly printed paper US Treasury Bonds have absolutely NO VALUE, except that the US government is allowing these Dollar Valued items (that US citizens paid to foreigners to make the consumer products that US citizens consumed) to be redeemed to purchase title to (corporations that own) privately owned businesses, factories, casinos, hotels, farms, land, ports, refineries, forests, ports, breweries, distilleries, and other privately owned NATIONAL WEALTH and other assets located in the USA (that were created by previous US generations prior to de-industrialization) instead of redeeming these freshly printed paper US Treasury Bonds with gold from Ft. Knox.

When the USA has no more privately owned wealth and assets (title to US real estate and US businesses) available for foreigners in industrial countries to purchase in exchange for the foreigners freshly printed paper US Treasury Bonds and US Dollar electronic credits that we gave the foreigners to make consumer products for US citizens, those foreigners will then not accept any more of our freshly printed US dollars and US Treasury bonds to pay for the consumer products that we continue to import and consume.

The Federal government will then not have funding to pay for our US government expenses (bureaucratic payrolls, military payrolls, government contracts, wars, welfare, unemployment, infrastructure expansion, highways, bridges, etc.) and/or to pay for any more imported consumer products.

[gerald4]

02:19 PM on 02/24/2012

The US Government will then probably just start printing US dollars to pay for their government expenses as many African nations have done.

When this happens, the purchasing power of the US dollar will approach the value of toilet paper.

Each civilization has always strived and desired to create sufficient financial resources to pay for the common infrastructure that we all enjoy, to take care of those citizens that cannot take care of themselves plus various other government expenses that consumes existing privately owned WEALTH and does not create any new WEALTH.

[gerald4]

11:36 AM on 02/24/2012

Each nation must constantly generate new WEALTH and new assets in order to create the financial capability to be able to take care of those that cannot take care of themselves, and other government activities. This capability can only be available if that nation has NATIONAL WEALTH created by successful businesses available that can be CONFISCATED in the form of taxation in order to create funds to pay for these government activities.

There are limits to the amount of NATIONAL WEALTH that any nation can be FORCIBLY TAKE from their wealth creators in the form of TAXES and/or borrowed from foreigners (promising that future taxes will repay the proceeds from these "Bond Sales") and then handed to various government agencies to pay for various government activities and expenses, no matter how much these government expenses are deemed as being "necessary" usually by the elite government bureaucrats spending the money.

If those limits are exceeded, then that nation’s economy will self destruct and that nation will evolve into something resembling Greece or Somalia!

[marinfan]

10:55 AM on 02/24/2012

What do you mean closet Keynsian? Three of the Repugs candidates are unabashed Keynsians (as was Bush).

[UnqleFungus]

10:46 AM on 02/24/2012

As Lincoln once said of a rival, "he has such a high regard for the truth he uses it sparingly."

[humanbeing-rick]

09:43 AM on 02/24/2012

Brilliant observation. Mr. Romney exposed the weakness in all of his opponents proposals.
“If you just cut, if all you’re thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you’ll slow down the economy.”
Let the truth be known, although his colleagues were all aghast, and pounced on him for it.

[frantaylor]

09:55 AM on 02/24/2012

i'ts a weakness in HIS proposals, because HE wants to cut spending, too!

Try again when you know your candidates agenda.

[billw8017]

04:05 PM on 02/24/2012

Only Romney knows what he actually wants aside from becoming President. Otherwise, you can say he wants anything and find the quotes to support your interpretation. Santorum and Paul seem to say what they think, alarming though that is.

[Binea]

10:58 AM on 02/24/2012

The way Ron Paul plans to cut a trillion dollars in the first year will NOT slow the economy,it will BOOST it.
His cuts do not hurt the social safety net at all.They actually shore up and make them strong.
His cuts hurt the fat cats and wasteful programs.
everyone else including Obama will hurt "we the little people".

[billw8017]

04:11 PM on 02/24/2012

Paul would replace the social safety net with charity. His opposition to Medicare is quite frank. His opposition to Social Security is principled even if he is a little shy about it. Abolishing Social Security and Medicare and cutting our military would, in fact, reduce federal expenditures so far as to balance the budget.