Paul Krugman: Why Are Centrists Falling For Fiscal Flimflam And Joining The Cult Of Paul Ryan?

Paul Krugman (AP)

The New York Times:

So, can we talk about the Paul Ryan phenomenon? And yes, I mean the phenomenon, not the man. Mr. Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee and the principal author of the last two Congressional Republican budget proposals, isn’t especially interesting. He’s a garden-variety modern G.O.P. extremist, an Ayn Rand devotee who believes that the answer to all problems is to cut taxes on the rich and slash benefits for the poor and middle class.

Read the whole story at The New York Times

Comments

[Donny Vandenhaus]

01:03 PM on 04/12/2012

Stop funding old peoples health care, and we will have more money to murder foreigners for not having WOMD.

[Carla van der Meer]

09:20 PM on 04/11/2012

More tax breaks for the rich and more hardship for those who cannot afford it ( physically or financially ).When will politicians stop engaging in cronyism. and and start to look after the people who elect them.

[blindsquirl]

03:36 PM on 04/11/2012

No matter how you slice it or dice it...no matter who's side you are on...the "problems" with the Nation's economy is, in it's entirety, the handi-work of politicans claiming to know "something about economics".
There is..absolutely..no reason, for any of us to follow the advice of politicians, concerning financial matters.
Yet the MSM gives us a daily dose of their "wisdom"..?
Politicians do not operate the government like a business. They do operate it like a cash-cow, that they invariably claim, is something "we" are responsible for, and "we" have to pay-off.
If "we" as individuals are responsible for the "contracts", that "we" sign, we, as individuals are required to make good on that expendature...
politicians that put their signature on appropriations bills, for which there is no money available, those signers, must be held -personally- responsible for the debt it creates.
That is the only honest solution to America's economic woes.

[Mover]

02:38 PM on 04/11/2012

"The reaction from many commentators was a howl of outrage. The president was being rude; he was being partisan; he was being a big meanie."

I think Mr. Krugman is confused. The president was rude to Sen. Ryan when he invited Ryan and others to come to the White House and insulted Ryan to his face.

Having the president cast dispersions on any GOP plan is only par for this guy.

[Mover]

12:31 PM on 04/11/2012

"President Obama said the obvious: the latest Republican budget proposal, a proposal that Mitt Romney has avidly embraced, is a “Trojan horse” — that is, it is essentially a fraud. “Disguised as deficit reduction plans, it is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country.” "

The Orwellian overtures of this remark are amazing. I truly, truly, find it hard to believe that anyone believes this President anymore.

He continuously gets behind a microphone and describes, prefectly, what he and the Democratic Party have been doing, but switches to object of the actions from himself to anyone who opposes him. He has never read a speech where he did not use this find of double-talk. Never.

[Mover]

11:53 AM on 04/11/2012

"He’s a garden-variety modern G.O.P. extremist, an Ayn Rand devotee who believes that the answer to all problems is to cut taxes on the rich and slash benefits for the poor and middle class."

Extremist?

This is pretty good for conversations around the kool aid trough, but people with common sense know better.

So let's take a common sense definition of "extreme" in reference to politicians. Can we say that if you propose a budget and even your own party will not vote for it is "extreme"?

The president's 2011 budget proposal received 0 (zero) votes from Senate Democrats or Republicans. http://tinyurl.com/7xdd5pr

The president's 2012 budget proposal received 0 (zero) votes from Senate Democrats. http://tinyurl.com/3au2tzq

On the other hand, Paul Ryan's budget went down (naturally) in a bipartisan vote, 57 nay to 40 yeas. Looks pretty centrist to me.

[blindsquirl]

03:52 PM on 04/11/2012

The things multi-millionaire legislators can agree on are proposals that will put more money in their own pockets...that bears no resembleance to how "we" would vote on the same issues.

[cnrventures]

04:26 PM on 04/10/2012

Because Ryan's plan is the more sustainable plan. Obama's plan isn't working now as food, gas, and energy is going up while unemployment and under employment remains higher than ever. Maybe less people are fooled by Obama's BS now than before.

[silvercreeklady]

01:34 PM on 04/10/2012

Dems class war over the Buffet rule the truth?...."The Obama administration is emphasizing “fairness” over deficit reduction in its renewed pitch for the “Buffett rule” ahead of next week’s scheduled Senate vote.

Introducing a minimum 30 percent income tax on millionaires “was never our plan to bring the deficit down and get the debt under control,” Jason Furman, the principal deputy director of the White House National Economic Council, told reporters on a conference call Monday afternoon. “This is not the president’s entire tax plan. We’re not trying to say this solves all our economic problems, all our budget problems.”

[Mover]

12:18 PM on 04/11/2012

"Introducing a minimum 30 percent income tax on millionaires “was never our plan to bring the deficit down and get the debt under control,” Jason Furman"

Finally the truth comes out. They never planned to balance the budget. Just like their other plans that weren't meant to do what they said it would do. Reducing the deficits would reduce inflation and they can't have that. The same goes for jobs. They are borrowing money from China to pay people to stay home for years rather then look for a job after Congressional Democrats killed millions of jobs and refused to use any plan of action that has worked in the past.

No. They keep steering us in the opposite direction.

The only reason some companies are hiring and the numbers are down a little is because capitalism cannot help but grow. And it would grow much faster if someone who knew what they were doing took charge of the White House and Congress.

[wgpbp]

11:44 AM on 04/10/2012

Because Keynesianism is voodoo economics and Krugman is a partisan hack who has lost all credibility.

[pitachito]

12:00 AM on 04/10/2012

The reason for the howl of outrage by corporate media hack puppets is perhaps because their nads are tied to their "opinions", err, jobs.

[zinxeb]

10:42 PM on 04/09/2012

I have a lot of respect for Mr. Krugman's intelligence, so when he writes something, I pay it heed...and this article hits the nail on the head regarding the Ryan bill, and all of the "noise" about it.

Most non-partisan economists say that the Ryan bill either won't ever reduce the debt, or will reduce it by 2060. They also say that it is impossible to reduce the debt without tax increases. They also say that this bill, if passed, would put a heavy burden on the old, sick and poor.

Anyone who tries to "dress this up" as being anything other than what non-partisan economists say it is, is just putting "lipstick on a pig".

[4eva]

09:29 PM on 04/09/2012

Three things rely on constant and perpetual growth: economists, government and cancer.

[Moose Intheoc]

01:25 AM on 04/10/2012

I agree.

... --- / .... .- .-. -.. / -. --- - / - --- / .... .- - . / . ...- .. .-..

[Whoahox]

07:35 PM on 04/09/2012

C'mon Krugman! This is what "centrists" do, for heaven's sake. You know, I'm an Independent, mostly because I don't know enough to form an opinion.

[Oletech71]

07:27 PM on 04/09/2012

Paul Krugmann knows about as much about a centrist as I know about page 2149 of the Obamacare law.

[aquarius254]

07:50 PM on 04/09/2012

I would say that Paul Krugmann knows more about anything than you know about anything outside the Fox bubble.

[Saulius Muliolis]

08:23 AM on 04/10/2012

Go read any criticism out there on Krugman's "The Hangover Theory" article.

I have not yet read any Krugman article that does not misrepresent free market ideas or make some rather serious blunders of fact.

My earliest experience of Krugman is reading his articles blaming California's electric utilities crisis on deregulation and "faith in free markets". Please, tell me how someone with "faith in free markets" allow price controls to remain in place in a market they are supposedly deregulating? Why would somoeone with "faith in free markets" force businesses to sell off part of their capital and then buy and sell their product on an artificial, government created exchange with all sorts of complex rules? Go read up on "Death Star" and explain to me how ENRON could have pulled that off in a free market.

When it comes to any issue of free markets vs. government control, Krugman is either clueless, or biased beyond sanity.

[wme98]

08:35 PM on 04/09/2012

Page 2149 must be a blank page like your mind.

[independent6275]

06:57 PM on 04/09/2012

Because the poverty ridden welfare statism you peddle is a cancer...LOL this guy is a tool

[jancf]

08:45 PM on 04/09/2012

Welfare for the wealthiest is the way to go.