5 ms·

Don't worry about it. Krugman says deficits are ok.

by jpcx01 16y ago

jbooth 16y ago
Krugman says that we're in a depression and that the one economic climate where you should run a temporary deficit is in severe recession or depression. Now, you can say that after 8 years of castigating Bush for deficits, he's all of a sudden ok with them under Obama. And you'd be right. But it's also true that Bush took inherited a surplus and doubled the national debt in a "boom" economy, while Obama inherited an already-massive deficit while in the most severe economic crisis we've seen in decades.
- roc 16y ago
  > "he's all of a sudden ok with them under Obama. And you'd be right." No, you wouldn't. For eight years he castigated Bush for not paying down the debt. Krugman's advice is: borrow your way out of the bad days, pay it back on the good ones. There's plenty of policy there to disagree about. There's no reason or benefit to misrepresenting people's positions.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Finish reading :) I said exactly that.
    - roc 16y ago
      My mistake. I swear I read that twice; apparently I should have gone for a third pass.
- anamax 16y ago
  > But it's also true that Bush took inherited a surplus and doubled the national debt in a "boom" economy The deficit under the last Repub congress was $100B/year and the trend was downwards. That changed when the Dems took congress for Bush's last two years. The current deficit is $100B/month. Note that Congress didn't pass a budget in 2008 - they held back until after Obama became president.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Ok, so based on fiscal-year technicalities and on the GIANT ECONOMIC DISASTER that Bush and supply-side economics presided over, Obama's increased the deficit a lot. True. He still didn't inherit a surplus and double the national debt.
    - anamax 16y ago
      Bush had 9/11. Bush also did a prescription drug plan that was a financial disaster. However, the Dems wanted something even more expensive so .... In fact, that's generally true; Repubs overspent, but Dems wanted more. The Repubs weren't fiscally conservative in absolute terms, but they were significantly more so than Dems. Since the alternative to Repubs isn't perfection, but Dems, that's relevant. As to the financial disaster, it's due to Dems pushing "affordable" housing. The Repub's contribution is that they didn't try very hard to oppose it. (When McCain suggested looking at Fannie and Freddie in 2005/6, he got his teeth kicked in.) Tax revenues increased under Bush. And fewer paid income taxes. (The poor get a decent return on SS while the rest of us are hosed. The rich don't care because both "contributions" and payouts are capped.)
      - jbooth 16y ago
        Assertion, assertion, assertion. What was the vote count on that prescription drug plan disaster, again? How many of those same people, institutions and editorial pages are huge deficit hawks now? What happened to "deficits don't matter"? You opened this thread saying "yeah but if we figure the calendar this way i can put all of the 2008 stuff on Obama". You advertised that you don't give a crap about reasoned conclusions, you're just going to attempt to twist the facts. You said out loud, "I'm doing this". Deficits don't matter in 2003, they're the most important thing ever in 2010. Whatever. It's your right, freedom of speech and all that. But I'm not going to take you seriously.
        anamax 16y ago
        > What was the vote count on that prescription drug plan disaster, again? It was mostly repubs for and mostly dems against on final passage. The vote to substitute the Dem proposal, which was more expensive, it was mostly Dems for and mostly Repubs against. Yes, the Repubs passed a monstrosity. The Dems tried to pass something worse. It's unclear how these two facts make the Dems look better than the Repubs. > How many of those same people, institutions and editorial pages are huge deficit hawks now? What happened to "deficits don't matter"? One might argue that there's a difference between $100B/year and $100B/month. You're claiming that it's wrong to be concerned about $100B/month yet be okay with $100B/year.... More to the point, I'm not claiming that the Repubs were/are correct. I'm saying that they're bad, but better than Dems on this. > yeah but if we figure the calendar this way i can put all of the 2008 stuff on Obama It's a fact that the 2008 budget wasn't passed until after Obama took office. Congressional Dems said that Obama had significant input into that budget. Do you really want to argue that they were lying? > you're just going to attempt to twist the facts. Some actual examples would be nice. > You said out loud, "I'm doing this". Oh really? Where?

Don't worry about it. Krugman says deficits are ok.

by jpcx01 16y ago

Don't worry about it. Krugman says deficits are ok.

Krugman says that we're in a depression and that the one economic climate where you should run a temporary deficit is in severe recession or depression. Now, you can say that after 8 years of castigating Bush for deficits, he's all of a sudden ok with them under Obama. And you'd be right. But it's also true that Bush took inherited a surplus and doubled the national debt in a "boom" economy, while Obama inherited an already-massive deficit while in the most severe economic crisis we've seen in decades.

roc 16y ago
> "he's all of a sudden ok with them under Obama. And you'd be right." No, you wouldn't. For eight years he castigated Bush for not paying down the debt. Krugman's advice is: borrow your way out of the bad days, pay it back on the good ones. There's plenty of policy there to disagree about. There's no reason or benefit to misrepresenting people's positions.
- jbooth 16y ago
  Finish reading :) I said exactly that.
  - roc 16y ago
    My mistake. I swear I read that twice; apparently I should have gone for a third pass.
anamax 16y ago
> But it's also true that Bush took inherited a surplus and doubled the national debt in a "boom" economy The deficit under the last Repub congress was $100B/year and the trend was downwards. That changed when the Dems took congress for Bush's last two years. The current deficit is $100B/month. Note that Congress didn't pass a budget in 2008 - they held back until after Obama became president.
- jbooth 16y ago
  Ok, so based on fiscal-year technicalities and on the GIANT ECONOMIC DISASTER that Bush and supply-side economics presided over, Obama's increased the deficit a lot. True. He still didn't inherit a surplus and double the national debt.
  - anamax 16y ago
    Bush had 9/11. Bush also did a prescription drug plan that was a financial disaster. However, the Dems wanted something even more expensive so .... In fact, that's generally true; Repubs overspent, but Dems wanted more. The Repubs weren't fiscally conservative in absolute terms, but they were significantly more so than Dems. Since the alternative to Repubs isn't perfection, but Dems, that's relevant. As to the financial disaster, it's due to Dems pushing "affordable" housing. The Repub's contribution is that they didn't try very hard to oppose it. (When McCain suggested looking at Fannie and Freddie in 2005/6, he got his teeth kicked in.) Tax revenues increased under Bush. And fewer paid income taxes. (The poor get a decent return on SS while the rest of us are hosed. The rich don't care because both "contributions" and payouts are capped.)
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Assertion, assertion, assertion. What was the vote count on that prescription drug plan disaster, again? How many of those same people, institutions and editorial pages are huge deficit hawks now? What happened to "deficits don't matter"? You opened this thread saying "yeah but if we figure the calendar this way i can put all of the 2008 stuff on Obama". You advertised that you don't give a crap about reasoned conclusions, you're just going to attempt to twist the facts. You said out loud, "I'm doing this". Deficits don't matter in 2003, they're the most important thing ever in 2010. Whatever. It's your right, freedom of speech and all that. But I'm not going to take you seriously.
      - anamax 16y ago
        > What was the vote count on that prescription drug plan disaster, again? It was mostly repubs for and mostly dems against on final passage. The vote to substitute the Dem proposal, which was more expensive, it was mostly Dems for and mostly Repubs against. Yes, the Repubs passed a monstrosity. The Dems tried to pass something worse. It's unclear how these two facts make the Dems look better than the Repubs. > How many of those same people, institutions and editorial pages are huge deficit hawks now? What happened to "deficits don't matter"? One might argue that there's a difference between $100B/year and $100B/month. You're claiming that it's wrong to be concerned about $100B/month yet be okay with $100B/year.... More to the point, I'm not claiming that the Repubs were/are correct. I'm saying that they're bad, but better than Dems on this. > yeah but if we figure the calendar this way i can put all of the 2008 stuff on Obama It's a fact that the 2008 budget wasn't passed until after Obama took office. Congressional Dems said that Obama had significant input into that budget. Do you really want to argue that they were lying? > you're just going to attempt to twist the facts. Some actual examples would be nice. > You said out loud, "I'm doing this". Oh really? Where?