It’s really hard to believe that Paul Krugman is seriously suggesting we increase our tax revenue as a % of GDP by almost 50% No, it’s not.
I’ve always known it. And don’t be fooled into thinking it’s limited to this.
The history here is that each time the subject of the real desires of Democrats gets brought up... (Such as those in mentioned Krugman’s vernbalized wet dreams) ...those making such revelations are generally shouted down as being partisan extremists.. even by people who ostensibly call themselves ’conservative’.
But every once in a while the truth slips out.... usually in the form of words from an idiot like Krugman.
|
| |
Written By:
Bithead
URL:
http://bitheads.blogspot.com
|
For my part, I was convinced that Paul Krugman had abandoned any pretense of objectivity when, during a Presidential campaign marked by very misguided protectionist policy prescriptions from Democrats, Krugman—who made his entire career on establishing the merits of free trade—failed to once criticize any of them. http://www.lyinginponds.com/archives/2005/05/03/krugman-500/ |
| |
Written By:
Joe R. the Unabrewer
URL:
http://unabrewer.com
|
I haven’t seen a single sentence in any of the Krugman columns I’ve read to indicate he is a capable economist at all. There is his love of high taxes and bigger government you cite here. There are his past columns that predicted disaster if the Bush tax cuts were enacted. I believe he was predicting higher unemployment and stagnation as the result of those cuts. There were his constant claims all last year that the economy was on the ropes.
I haven’t read any of his peer-reviewed stuff, but how good could it be?
|
| |
Written By:
Abe of Lincoln
URL:
http://dontletmestopyou.blogspot.com
|
I don’t find the comment about the 28% surprising at all. Given his statements about SS, that’s about where we need to be to avoid a massive fiscal crisis. Of course, taxation that high would induce a massive fiscal crisis. So much for the brilliant economist.
Capable? I am being completely honest when I say that I had gained the impression that the man couldn’t add 2 and 3 and come up with the same number twice. He’s no economist in my eyes. He is an obfuscating ideologue. The bigger problem for those who want to see a crisis in Social Security’s future is this: if Social Security is just part of the federal budget, with no budget or trust fund of its own, then, well, it’s just part of the federal budget: there can’t be a Social Security crisis. All you can have is a general budget crisis. Rising Social Security benefit payments might be one reason for that crisis, but it’s hard to make the case that it will be central. This is a lot of verbiage thrown around to obscure the fact that we aren’t saving the surplus money we are paying in, and when SS ceases to pay for itself the increase will have to come from the taxpayers.
Only Bugs Bunny can do justice to this sort of thing - "What a maroon."
|
| |
Written By:
MaxedOutMama
URL:
http://maxedoutmama.blogspot.com
|
Not much real debate going on here. Seems like a cabal of the same and simple-minded.
Let’s first dispense with the ad hominem attacks on Krugman. As for Krugman not being smart or a real economist, I think that his position as an economics professor at Princeton speaks for itself. I doubt many of the posters here could even get into Princeton on an undergraduate basis. I would eat my hat (or even more unappetizing items) if any one of the posters could attain a tenured professorship there.
Second, I find it interesting that this thread began with a one sentence quotation from an article, devoid of its surrounding sentences; and this snippet is used to charactize Paul Krugman. Without knowing more, it appears that the context of Krugman’s sentence (arguendo the newspaper article it came from is even accurate) is that the government is spending too much and/or collecting too little of what is owed under existing law (i.e., corporate offshoring of profits and the proliferation of tax shelters). From the article it appears Krugman is concerned that such an increase in tax revenue is necessary to balance a budget that once again has grown out of control on the Republican tenure in power. It is not the Krugman thinks it is an ideal situation for taxes to be higher; rather, it is a reaction to the miss we are in. I like Krugman. I read his column in the NYT. He is smart and believes that his citizenship in this country extends to more than his pecuniary self interest. He is concerned that the US has staggering budget deficits, staggering trade deficits, and staggering personal debt. With that being said, what do you think of Joseph Stiglitz? |
| |
Written By:
BreathofFreshAir
URL:
http://
|
I doubt many of the posters here could even get into Princeton on an undergraduate basis.
Speaking of "ad hominem" attacks ... do you even know what that means? |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
McQ. Since you apparently are asking me to define "ad hominem" for your benefit, here it is. It is an attack against the person (as opposed to the validity of what the person is saying). It is am invalid argument. I hope this helps.
Have to go. Flame me all you want now. |
| |
Written By:
BreathofFreshAir
URL:
http://
|
On an economic basis, I imagine the need to raise taxes is related to the budget deficit . . .
It’s to pay for George Bush’s big government. |
| |
Written By:
Brian J. Levy
URL:
http://www.levy2020.com
|
It’s really hard to believe that Paul Krugman is seriously suggesting we increase our tax revenue as a % of GDP by almost 50% I don’t know why anyone finds it hard to believe. Right now that’s the current law—the tax increases are coming, just a few years later.
The SS Trustees project that by 2030 income taxes as a percentage of GDP will have to increase 35% from today’s levels just to cover trust fund operations. Then there’s Medicare—that will require another 30% income tax increase or so. So just by 2030 income taxes will have to go up by 60% of 65% from today’s levels. Thereafter, Medicare costs continue to rise, indefinitely. As do the taxes needed to pay them.
You know, 2030’s not so far away—and to have a 60% income tax increase by then, rates will have to start going up well before that. And that’s the default position under current law.
Come around 2025 or so, the 50-year-olds of the day are going to be pretty surprised to find they have to pay a 35% income tax hike for the rest of their lives (including after retirement) just to reimburse themselves for all the payroll taxes they paid into the trust fund for the prior 30 years, which are gone. So they’ll have to pay for their Social Security benefits twice. With those benefits (1) still providing negative return relative to just the payroll taxed paid in; and (2) still being 25% underfunded.
Social Security figures to be real popular with them then, eh?
As do the Democrats—who assured them for so long that "Social Security is just fine for the next 40 years even if we do nothing at all about it, because its financed by the trust fund!" Nothing at all in Democratic parlance turning out to mean: huge tax hikes we didn’t tell you about.On an economic basis, I imagine the need to raise taxes is related to the budget deficit ... It’s to pay for George Bush’s big government. The budget defict today is 3.5% of GDP. Krugman’s increase of tax revenue by 11% of GDP would create a surplus of 7.5% of GDP—rather more than covering any Bush deficit.
The question then: what to do with a 7.5% of GDP surplus. How to save it? Why, polish up those Social Security and Medicare trust fund lock boxes, of course—they’ve always worked so well before!
|
| |
Written By:
Jim Glass
URL:
http://www.scrivener.net
|
It is not the Krugman thinks it is an ideal situation for taxes to be higher; rather, it is a reaction to the miss we are in. Actually, I’ve never known Paul Krugman to advocate serious cuts in the budget, so it’s hard to believe that Paul Krugman’s problem is with spending. No, his problem is with the current level of taxes. He seems perfectly happy to spend at current levels.
[ad hominem] is an attack against the person (as opposed to the validity of what the person is saying). Actually, that’s just an insult. Ad hominem is an attack against the person in order to discredit what the argument. Nobody is suggesting that Krugman’s idea is invalid because he’s a bad economist. Rather, they are suggesting that Paul Krugman is a bad economist because of his bad ideas. That’s incorrect in my view, but it’s not ad hominem.On an economic basis, I imagine the need to raise taxes is related to the budget deficit . . . It’s to pay for George Bush’s big government. Well, as Jim Glass pointed out, that’s simply incorrect. The coming deficit problems have little to do with Bush, though the Bush administration (and the Republican Congress) has certainly made them worse.
On the other hand, I don’t know of any serious budget cuts Krugman would make, so it’s hard to suggest that he’s opposed to these big budgets. He’s not opposed to high taxes because he’s not opposed to this high level of spending. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
McQ. Since you apparently are asking me to define "ad hominem" for your benefit, here it is. It is an attack against the person (as opposed to the validity of what the person is saying). It is am invalid argument. I hope this helps.I doubt many of the posters here could even get into Princeton on an undergraduate basis. I think you missed my point .... so what was this? |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
Simply put, it was the typical "You’re all too stupid to be liberal" mantra we’ve heard from the far left for years.
|
| |
Written By:
Bithead
URL:
http://bitheads.blogspot.com
|
No Krugman thread is complete without some liberal defender of his dragging out the argument from authority fallacy. The problem is, Krugman’s columns are persistently sloppy and misguided about even the most basic economics. The fact that the man’s degrees show that he knows better only means that he’s being deliberately sloppy and intentionally dishonest, rather than just foolish.
Part of the problem may be that Krugman is so certain that his opponents are dishonest that he rationalizes his distortions as necessary political push-back. I don’t know the man, so I can’t say, but it’s as logical an explanation as I can think of to explain the gaps between his well-respected academic writings and his punditry.
I continue to believe that he wouldn’t be quite so bad if the Times would switch to a smaller font, give him more words to work with, and cut him back to once a week. |
| |
Written By:
Crank
URL:
http://www.baseballcrank.com
|
McQ and Joe Henke, I don’t think I missed the point; rather, I think you did not read the prior comments in this thread. John, do you read the comments before you put your two cents in (JonHenke: "Nobody is suggesting that Krugman’s idea is invalid because he’s a bad economist.")
Here are the Ad hominem remarks from above you fellas missed, and to which I referred:
Abe of Lincoln: "I haven’t seen a single sentence in any of the Krugman columns I’ve read to indicate he is a capable economist at all."
MaxedOutMama: "Capable? I am being completely honest when I say that I had gained the impression that the man couldn’t add 2 and 3 and come up with the same number twice. He’s no economist in my eyes."
Bye the way, here is how Krugman is described by Greg Mankiw, in the current Fortune Magazine:
"I had Paul as a teacher at MIT. And when I was at CEA in ’82 and ’83, he was there as well. I was a junior staffer in the Reagan administration. Two members of the senior staff were Krugman and (former Harvard economics professor, Clinton Treasury Secretary and current Harvard president Lawrence) Summers. At that time he was a brilliant economist. I thought he’d win a Nobel prize. I think there’s a good chance he still will. His early work on international trade theory deserves it."
Yah, John Henke, you can sure teach Paul Krugman an thing or two about free markets. LOL
|
| |
Written By:
BreathofFreshAir
URL:
http://
|
I doubt many of the posters here could even get into Princeton on an undergraduate basis.
I think you missed my point .... so what was this? McQ and Joe Henke, I don’t think I missed the point;
Actually you missed it completely ... twice. You used an ad hominem attack to decry ad hominem attacks.
I, personally, just loved the irony, which, apparently was completely lost on you. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
The ultimate irony, McQ, is that you cannot express your point. It is not lost on me that the Princeton undergraduate ad hominem was in return for the prior ad hominems. It seems to sting you a little too much. Did you even apply there?
I will say goodbye to this blog and leave you guys to |
| |
Written By:
BreathofFreshAir
URL:
http://
|
It is not lost on me that the Princeton undergraduate ad hominem was in return for the prior ad hominems.
Well, for goodness sake, I would hope not after being told for the third time.
But best of luck out there expressing your points in the future. If I were you though, I’d work more on comprehension than expression.
Seems to be a particular weakness of yours.
Ta ta ... |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
Here are the Ad hominem remarks from above you fellas missed, and to which I referred: Those are insults, not ad hominem attacks. There’s a difference. An ad hominem attack is made against the person in order to discredit his idea. Those statements criticized him based on his ideas.
And ad hominem attack would be something like: "well, you can’t trust what Krugman says, because he’s a liberal professor, and they lie". That would be an ad hominem attack—and ridiculous, of course. You’re confusing insults with ad hominem, and I think you need to read up on the difference.here is how Krugman is described by Greg Mankiw, in the current Fortune Magazine I actually cited that very passage here. Further, you might read this very post in which I described Krugman as "an enormously capable economist".
My contention is not that I can teach Paul Krugman about the issue I cited—it is that I object to Paul Krugman’s overly tendentious op-ed columns on the topics. I thought that was rather clear in my post, but apparently I should have used smaller words. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
I would rather not bash as much as the others but I would prefer to dispense some degree of perception. As far as ss we need to come to an arrangement asap or else it will only get worst. And for Krugmans commentary, yes that is too much taxing we are already being taxed to the hilt enough not only in this country, but in countries that don’t even have fax machines.
regards |
| |
Written By:
Brian Maloney
URL:
http://loan.valueprep.com
|
