Paul Krugman is an Obama-type guy. He doesn’t mind lying to trick the weak-minded into believing there is no deficit, debt or spending problems.
From the NYTimes:
It’s hard to turn on your TV or read an editorial page these days without encountering someone declaring, with an air of great seriousness, that excessive spending and the resulting budget deficit is our biggest problem. Such declarations are rarely accompanied by any argument about why we should believe this; it’s supposed to be part of what everyone knows.
This is, however, a case in which what everyone knows just ain’t so. The budget deficit isn’t our biggest problem, by a long shot. Furthermore, it’s a problem that is already, to a large degree, solved. The medium-term budget outlook isn’t great, but it’s not terrible either — and the long-term outlook gets much more attention than it should.
Try to follow this moron’s logic. Budget deficits add to the national debt but it’s not a problem because it’s already solved. We are heading towards our 5th straight year of producing a $1 trillion plus deficit. Don’t worry, the problem is solved according to Krugman.
It’s true that right now we have a large federal budget deficit. But that deficit is mainly the result of a depressed economy — and you’re actually supposed to run deficits in a depressed economy to help support overall demand. The deficit will come down as the economy recovers: Revenue will rise while some categories of spending, such as unemployment benefits, will fall. Indeed, that’s already happening. (And similar things are happening at the state and local levels — for example, California appears to be back in budget surplus.)
Spending more than you take in has nothing to do with it, according to Krugman. If there was higher demand, corporations and factories would be hiring in order to make more product. Neither is happening but Krugmas has to lie to calm down the low-information voters. Revenue isn’t the problem. Government spending is. Also, the economy, under Obama, is stagnant and experiencing a 31-year low in labor force participation which has lead to record long-term unemployment.
California is nowhere near being in a budget surplus. Guess Krugman doesn’t read the paper he works for. Krugman is going off of a prediction made by California’s moonbat Governor Jerry Brown, not actual numbers.
Still, will economic recovery be enough to stabilize the fiscal outlook? The answer is, pretty much.
Recently the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities took Congressional Budget Office projections for the next decade and updated them to take account of two major deficit-reduction actions: the spending cuts agreed to in 2011, amounting to almost $1.5 trillion over the next decade; and the roughly $600 billion in tax increases on the affluent agreed to at the beginning of this year. What the center finds is a budget outlook that, as I said, isn’t great but isn’t terrible: It projects that the ratio of debt to G.D.P., the standard measure of America’s debt position, will be only modestly higher in 2022 than it is now.
As most of us know, the CBO has a terrible record with their projections (See Clinton surplus and Bush surplus projections along with Social Security, Medicare and ObamaCare projections).
The center calls for another $1.4 trillion in deficit reduction, which would completely stabilize the debt ratio; President Obama has called for roughly the same amount. Even without such actions, however, the budget outlook for the next 10 years doesn’t look at all alarming.
Really? The CBO projected that Obama’s 2012 budget would push the national debt up past $20 trillion. It was so bad that Democrats in the House and Senate gave it no votes. Doubling the national debt is not “alarming” to the Keynesian fool Krugman.
Now, projections that run further into the future do suggest trouble, as an aging population and rising health care costs continue to push federal spending higher. But here’s a question you almost never see seriously addressed: Why, exactly, should we believe that it’s necessary, or even possible, to decide right now how we will eventually address the budget issues of the 2030s?
But, but, but didn’t Krugman claim that ObamaCare would stop the raise in health care costs and save money? Didn’t the CBO make the same claims? Yes and both are wrong as always. Krugman is your typical spend-and-tax, tax-and-spend liberal who wants to continue this spending spree and kick the responsibilities of paying for it down the road to 2030.