-
Is Kleiner Perkins Sorry It Ever Met Al Gore?
May 13, 2013 | 32 comments
-
America’s Oil Revival
February 8, 2013 | 146 comments
-
Want to Stop Violence? Start in Hollywood
January 21, 2013 | 26 comments
-
Brandon in the Basement
January 8, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Time for Some Ju-Jitsu
December 10, 2012 | 51 comments
The Public Policy
Why We Don’t ‘Owe It To Ourselves’
The national debt, that is — no matter how often Paul Krugman tells you otherwise.
Since the incomparable William F. Buckley, Jr., has already dealt with this subject in 1958, I defer to his inimitable style in introducing the subject of today’s column:
Halfway through the second term of Franklin Roosevelt, the New Deal braintrusters began to worry about mounting popular concern over the national debt.… Indeed, Franklin Roosevelt had talked himself into office, in 1932, in part by promising to hack away at a debt which, even under the frugal Mr. Hoover, the people tended to think of as grown to menacing size.… And then, suddenly, the academic community came to the rescue. Economists across the length and breadth of the land were electrified by a theory of debt introduced in England by John Maynard Keynes. The politicians wrung their hands in gratitude. Depicting the intoxicating political consequences of Lord Keynes’s discovery, the wry cartoonist of the Washington Times Herald drew a memorable picture. In the center, sitting on a throne in front of a maypole, was a jubilant FDR, cigarette tilted up almost vertically, a grin on his face that stretched from ear to ear. Dancing about him in a circle, hands clasped together, their faces glowing with ecstasy, the braintrusters, vested in academic robes, sang the magical incantation, the great discovery of Lord Keynes: “We owe it to ourselves.”
With five talismanic words, the planners had disposed of the problem of deficit spending…. Tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect…
After being pinned to the wall in such eloquent fashion like a rare butterfly, you would think the conceit that “We owe the national debt to ourselves” would have been long retired to some museum of rhetorical antiquities. But no, we find that even today the doctrine is still vigorously alive, at least in the mind of Paul Krugman, the lunatic columnist of the New York Times who has just published another 300-page volume that can be digested into three words: “Spend, spend, spend” — the government, that is.
I admit I stopped reading Krugman a long time ago. You can only listen to a one-track mind for so long before it loses any further informational value. It all reminds me of the scene in Woody Allen’s Take the Money and Run where Virgil Starkwell, the inept career bank robber, drops a rock on the foot of a prison guard and is “locked in solitary confinement for a week with an insurance salesman” whom we last see disappearing into the hole with Woody propounding, “Now you’re gonna need life. I think term would be best. Then we’re going to want to cover you for accidents.…” That’s what Paul Krugman sounds like.
Fortunately, the New York Post’s Kyle Smith has stuck his head into the maelstrom and reports in his Sunday column last week what Krugman is up to these days. Wouldn’t you know, he finds the Nobel Laureate still flogging that same 1930s horse:
“People think of debt’s role in the economy as if it were the same as what debt means for an individual: There’s a lot of money you have to pay to someone else. But that’s all wrong; the debt we create is basically money we owe to ourselves, and the burden it imposes does not involve a real transfer of resources.”
In actuality, “We owe it to ourselves” is one of those deceiving little pieces of rhetoric whereby liberals put their arm around your and pat you on the back while picking your pocket. Let’s try an illustration. Imagine for a moment that you have taken out a 30-year mortgage on a house and owe the bank $300,000. Two years into your payments you lose some of your income and start falling behind. After three months the bank sends you a note saying that if the situation isn’t straightened out within another three months, they may have to foreclose.
Do you think it would be possible to go into the vice president’s office, put your arm around his shoulder and say, “Look, what’s the difference whether I pay you or not? I mean, we owe it to ourselves, don’t we?”
We don’t owe the national debt to ourselves. Some of us owe it to others. Those who owe are generally called “wage earners,” “taxpayers,” or “U.S. citizens.” Those who are owed are called “lenders” and “bondholders.” Now there may be some taxpayers who are also bondholders and bondholders who are also U.S. citizens, but the two groups are not identical. Reneging on any of the debt will produce an unequal outcome — what Krugman would call a “real transfer of resources.”
Look at it another way. A second class of stakeholders in this game is government employees who have a claim on pension rights that stretch far, far into the future. When the day comes — and it may not be long — that governments find they are having difficulty in meeting these obligations, will it be possible for them to brush off pensioners by saying, “Look, you don’t really need a check right now. I mean, we’d just be paying ourselves, right?”
The problem here is that modern governments are run by people who can’t make these kinds of calculations. This is especially true of the populists who congregate in the Democratic Party. Even the brightest of them see government as an entity above ordinary morality. In an article last week, for instance, USA Today revealed that the true size of the national debt is not the $16,000 per household that registers on the “Deficit Clock” but $42,000 per household — very near the average household income of $49,000. This is because, contrary to the rules that govern private companies and state and local governments, Congress does not require itself to include future health and retirement commitments on its books. That’s enough to take $3.7 trillion off the annual shortfall, chopping it from $5 trillion to $1.7 trillion.
What was really scary, however, was the comment of one Jim Horney, a former Senate budget staff expert now at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He told USA Today that “retirement programs should not count as part of the deficit because, unlike a business, Congress can change what it owes by cutting benefits or lifting taxes.” Did you get that? We can ignore future commitments to Medicare and Social Security because — what the heck — we can always just cut benefits or raise tax rates to something like 90 percent. All that will be required is the “political will.” Even liberals who can add and subtract generally don’t have the nerve to confront what they’re doing.
The national debt is not owed “to ourselves.” It is owed to bondholders who have loaned money on the understanding that they are going to be paid back. Even Democrats in the highest positions often have trouble grasping this reality. During the early days of the Clinton Administration, when the new President was being told he couldn’t borrow heedlessly to stimulate the economy, James Carville became famous for complaining, “I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or as a .400 baseball hitter. But now I would like to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody.” Apparently it never occurred to Carville that there are real people out there buying those bonds.
The bond market is not an abstraction. It is a group of people who have loaned money to the government. As creditors, they are acutely aware of the unspoken words at the end of “We owe it to ourselves,” which are, “We owe it to ourselves, therefore we really don’t have to worry about paying it back.”
Letter to the Editor View all comments (106) | Leave a comment
More Articles by William Tucker
More Articles From The Public Policy
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/01/why-we-dont-owe-it-to-ourselve
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Jack in Wi| 6.1.12 @ 6:34AM
We used to be able to finance our own debt, with our own savings. Goverment bonds were a good safe investment that paid some reasonable intrest. Today we are financing the Warfare-Welfare state with foreign debt and printing vast amounts of bonds and having the Federal Reserve buy them. This can't continue much longer. The debt will have to be either repudiated or paid back with ruinous inflation.
TrueBlue | 6.1.12 @ 12:48PM
More welfare than warfare. The Defense Dept budget is only 21% of yearly government spending.
Alej| 6.3.12 @ 8:20AM
True, True, and most of that is fixed expenses incurred in having a standing military defense; the pyrotechnics of the recent "kinetic actions" are only a percentage of the 21 percent.
Von Mises Jr| 6.1.12 @ 7:40AM
This is why Obama Czar Ron Bloom reiterated Mao's slogan that "Power comes mostly from the barrel of a gun." Currently, $2-3 trillion are being held in reserves by corporations and individuals.
Companies, pension funds and individuals bought Chrysler Bonds only to have Obama confiscate seventy cents ($0.70) on the dollar. The slow learners or hopelessly optimistic bought Greek Bonds and the European Authorities paid them about the same, thirty cents ($0.30) on the dollar in a settlement. Back in the day, we called this a default.
The U.S. Federal Reserve and the ECB have a printing press in the basement. So when they cannot raise taxes to produce the revenue and the next sucker (the Bond Market) refuses to buy bonds, then they simply inflate the money supply and devalue your wealth. It usually ends with something like the French Revolution when Louis XV destroyed the finances and left Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette holding the bag, or like the Weimar Republic that had 1,600% inflation before Hitler seized power.
Capital markets fail when free individuals refuse to lend in the free market. Then Mao has to go get the guns.
TLP| 6.1.12 @ 9:50AM
Krugman is but one more example of how the Nobel Prize has become the New Pulitzer, which is already 3 rungs lower on the Ladder of Importance than the Razzie.
Out of respect for our Nobel Lauriette, I will attempt to go to the Bank, this morning, and write a Check for A LOT MORE than I have in my Account. I'm sure that, after I've enunciated to these Fat Cat Stinking Jew Bankers, that there's no problem, as I am merely BORROWING this money from myself, so to speak, and if they would only see fit to tack an IOU to my Account Statement, there really isn't anyone who's the worse off, for my malfeasance.
After all.
I owe or to myself.
He really needs someone to take his head off.
Literally.
Von Mises Jr| 6.1.12 @ 9:58AM
TLP, I know we are about the same age by reading your posts, and we probably have much in common. ObaMao and Slugman would love for you to go borrow and get yourself in debt.
I have virtually zero debt and therefore the Marxist cannot easily control me.
If I had a big mortgage or was underwater, owed huge student loans, needed ObamaCare or had big credit card debt; they would effectively own me. But they don't own me. So they can kiss my sweet Irish ?
Al Adab| 6.1.12 @ 11:18AM
The owe it to ourselves argument was the one the Dems used back in the 60's when Conservatives first started questioning the national debt. It is no longer true. We need to redeem the foreign held debt even if we need to sell off federal lands/leases etc. to do so. Spending cuts, while critical to our future security, will not answer the issue of existing debt. Significant action to redeem the debt is required. Will the GOP take a strong stand on this or is it simply business as usual for them?
John Navratil| 6.1.12 @ 11:48AM
Al Adab,
That is the BIG question. Ten years ago, I thought I knew the answer. Events such as Richard Lugar's primary loss and David Dewhurst being forced into a run-off give me hope that the old guard is being put to pasture. Change, as it seems, is not always for the best.
TrueBlue | 6.1.12 @ 12:54PM
Since constitutionally the federal government should not own ANY land not being used for government or military buildings I'm rather against selling it off, it should go back to the states to sell to private citizens. That said, given our current debt I would be okay with them selling the land to private citizens so long as those people are US citizens. I'm tired of the government selling property to foreign governments, and REALLY don't want to see them sell off resource rich land to a foreign power/company.
Al Adab| 6.1.12 @ 1:27PM
True:
Good salient points, I agree. Sell the property to U S citizens. Also many lands could be leased for mineral (including the horrible oil) exploration or grazing rights and what not.
Von Mises Jr| 6.2.12 @ 7:43AM
Al, when we speak of "we" and “ourselves,” we use an abstraction. Groupings are used by the left to obfuscate. I am an economic geek, Catholic and TEA Party advocate. I belong to all these groups, but few that belong to any one of those groups are in any way affiliated with my other associations.
So it boils down to the fact that we are all individuals. Mises adamantly makes this point that everyone in a society is an individual. And the left's half century of redistribution of wealth is promises to pay or receive among individuals.
Blaise Pascal in his "Port Royal Logic" first two rules were that words must have a clear and unequivocal meaning, and that it must be used the same in any logical sequence. So the "We" and "Ourselves" fluctuate in the argument from my wife and I, to include children, parents, our state, the whole nation, future generations. It is easy to make any argument if the "We" could be my wife and me, OR it could be anyone who lived or will live in the United States over time.
Once again, the supposed "best and brightest," the "smartest people in the room" are both stupid and ignorant, or they think that we are.
Nancy Louise| 6.4.12 @ 8:41PM
Exactly. As Ayn Rand said, "The smallest minority on earth is that of the individual" And yes, they do think we're stupid. They think they can and should socially engineer us to behave and believe as they do. We only need their supreme tutelage to bring us to the apex of human kinship with one another, never mind if we lose our souls in the process. Why do they insist on belying human nature? After all, wouldn't the nation be far better off if we all operated in our own best interest?
TLP| 6.1.12 @ 4:16PM
Thou foolest thyself, my friend. He's controlling you, as we speak.
His ILLEGAL Drilling Moratorium is controlling you. His LIE, that he didn't have enough time to approve the most looked at, and studied, pipeline in the History of Civilization, is controlling you.
His $800 Billion Slush Fund to his Union Street Gangs, is controlling you. His Money Laundering GREEN ENERGY SUBSIDIES to his biggest Campaign Contributors, is controlling you.
His Infiltration of our most serious Intelligence Agency, with his MUSLIM Brotherhood Comrades, is controlling you.
His Taxes, his Regulations, his Executive Orders,p and his Unfunded Mandates, are controlling you.
His Devaluation of our Currency, is controlling you.
His BLACKS ONLY Attorney General, who thinks that young people, the Elderly, and Minorities, are too stupid, and thus, being discriminated against, by being asked to get a Photo I.D. For an Election that is SIX MONTHS AWAY, even though none of them can go to HIS OFFICE without one, is controlling you.
And, his Sycophantic, Refuse to Report the News, Media, is controlling you.
Methinks, your glazed over eyes, are Lying to you.
Warrior| 6.1.12 @ 10:49PM
If I might take the liberty to make some additions to your list. Open borders, half the country getting government handouts, the ability to kill US citizens without even a hearing, declaring military veterans potential terrorists, crony capitalism, judicial activism... The list of government control expands just as fast as the debt. Maybe when they confiscate people's gold and silver and take away the 401K's and IRAs some eyes might open.
TLP| 6.2.12 @ 7:43AM
Indeed.
Thou art wise, Warrior, but thou hast missed one, as well.
The Job Numbers that were just released.
Things are gonna get Hot, this Summer. His POS BLACKS ONLY Attorney General, who is outta control in need of a bullet, like nobody's business, is out there TEACHING Black Ministers how to Circumvent the Law, when it comes to Politicking from the Pulpit, and he's got the IRS, the ACLU, and a squad of Attorneys with him who were previously Defending our Islamic Enemies, PRO BONO, under the auspices of this CCKSCKR, as well.
We would all do well, to PREPARE ourselves for the Inevitable.
He is THE ONE they've been waiting for.
He is Hamas' DELIVEROR'S - Abu Hussain - "The Son of the Father" sent by the Muslim God of Blood and Murder, Death and Subjugation, to destroy the Jews, and deliver Jerusalem, back in to the hands of the Muslims.
He is the False Prophet that has been FORETOLD.
He is not going away, quietly.
TLP| 6.2.12 @ 7:44AM
Indeed.
Thou art wise, Warrior, but thou hast missed one, as well.
The Job Numbers that were just released.
Things are gonna get Hot, this Summer. His POS BLACKS ONLY Attorney General, who is outta control in need of a bullet, like nobody's business, is out there TEACHING Black Ministers how to Circumvent the Law, when it comes to Politicking from the Pulpit, and he's got the IRS, the ACLU, and a squad of Attorneys with him who were previously Defending our Islamic Enemies, PRO BONO, under the auspices of this CCKSCKR, as well.
We would all do well, to PREPARE ourselves for the Inevitable.
He is THE ONE they've been waiting for.
He is Hamas' DELIVEROR'S - Abu Hussain - "The Son of the Father" sent by the Muslim God of Blood and Murder, Death and Subjugation, to destroy the Jews, and deliver Jerusalem, back in to the hands of the Muslims.
He is the False Prophet that has been FORETOLD.
He is not going away, quietly.
TLP| 6.2.12 @ 7:47AM
I hate this MFing IPad, I hate Comcast, and I hate every Stupid Bast*rd, at this Site, who thought that Screwing around with something that WASN'T BROKE, was a good idea.
irish19| 6.1.12 @ 4:18PM
I've been told I'm sweet, but I don't want a kiss from any of them.
CJW| 6.1.12 @ 10:15AM
Von
Marx, Lenin, and Mao must be walking around in hell talking to themselves about how the ChiComs are keeping us in business.
We owe the ChiComs so much money that they have to keep lending more to keep our economy afloat.. Otherwise if we do a Greece, or Detroit, and default then they do not get paid.
Maybe this is the lefty economics: we borrow so much that the lender has to keep giving us money to stay in business. There cannot be any other logical and sensible reason for us to borrow money from the ChiComs and then give that borrowed money to Egypt (60 billion since 1978), Pokeystan, and out other loyal friends.
Dennis Miller said we should just tell the ChiComs we ain't paying, what are you going to do?
Von Mises Jr| 6.1.12 @ 11:07AM
CJW, Here is how it makes sense to Marxist and Alinskyites: We stole the world's resources and wealth. Now we are distributing it to BOTH the Chinese communist and the Third World at record pace.
Egypt, Paaahk(E)stan, Brazil, etc are getting the money we borrow from the Chinese financed with our children's future liberty.
The only way we could avoid a World War III (that Dennis Miller apparently fails to take into consideration) is that we repay the Chicoms with our land and resources.
Perhaps in the second term of the "ONE," we can nationalize HAL, SLB, XOM, CVX and COP, and give them to China as a $700B payment on our loans. That is the approximate Market Cap for those five energy sector companies.
Hell, we don't want no stinking oil anyway. We have solar panels on the telephone poles in my state already, and wind turbines scheduled for an offshore wind farm.
John Navratil| 6.1.12 @ 11:38AM
Von Mises Jr,
Instead of repaying the Chicoms with our land and resources, we could open them up for exploitation. From an economic perspective, it's a no brainer to drill for our own oil. We seem to prefer to borrow to fund extended unemployment benefits, instead.
TrueBlue | 6.1.12 @ 1:01PM
That's because we've been getting the line, "Even if we open it up now, we won't get any benefit for 10 years," for the past 30 years.
John Navratil| 6.1.12 @ 2:06PM
Sad but true. Even if we throw the "left" out now, we won't see any benefit for 10 years ;)
TLP| 6.2.12 @ 8:04AM
I disagree. We are not drilling at any of these sites, because, unlike the Democrats, who play fast and lose with every Rule in the Book (Like, using Reconciliation, to get their Soviet Style Health Care passed) the limp wristed, linguini spined, afraid of their own shadows, do nothing Prima donnas, on our side, are content to play by Marquis of Queensbury Rules, against an Opponent with a Gun in his Belt, and a set of Brass Knuckles, with a Blade at the bottom.
The problem is this: The Democrats are in a Bunker, waging an All Out War against Mom, Apple Pie, GOD, the Boy Scouts, Marriage, the English Language, our Economy, our Way of Life, and the Flag.
Meanwhile, our side thinks the're in a Fraternity.
Capiche?
Von Mises Jr| 6.2.12 @ 12:14PM
We are not drilling since it is capitalism. We would produce jobs, GDP and tax revenues. It is not acceptable to socialist.
Instead, they wish to control the resources. This is how Russia, Venezuela, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Iran fund their statist governments. Energy is nationalized and the profits are used to enslave the people.
Consider: Do we have the only socialist in the world that hates oil? Of course not. Our socialist just hates capitalism like all the rest.
TLP| 6.2.12 @ 8:06AM
I disagree. We are not drilling at any of these sites, because, unlike the Democrats, who play fast and lose with every Rule in the Book (Like, using Reconciliation, to get their Soviet Style Health Care passed) the limp wristed, linguini spined, afraid of their own shadows, do nothing Prima donnas, on our side, are content to play by Marquis of Queensbury Rules, against an Opponent with a Gun in his Belt, and a set of Brass Knuckles, with a Blade at the bottom.
The problem is this: The Democrats are in a Bunker, waging an All Out War against Mom, Apple Pie, GOD, the Boy Scouts, Marriage, the English Language, our Economy, our Way of Life, and the Flag.
Meanwhile, our side thinks the're in a Fraternity.
Capiche?
Von Mises Jr| 6.1.12 @ 10:14PM
John, that is not how fascism works. It is the Chicom and Democrat Party's land and resources. We will be in Detroit or Newark in a "Smart Growth" pack-and-stack apartment in bed at 9PM so we are not late for our government factory job in the morning.
Careful, "Big Brother" is watching YOU.
CJW| 6.1.12 @ 12:46PM
Von
The ChicComs have much of our technology, in addition to our money. During the Bubba era companies sold technology to them. I personally know about engineering companies doing a lot of business in China building mines, factories, and equipment. So the ChiComs will have all that technology. Years ago they bought the best American made barges and towboats to strip down and exaimine so they could build them.
Hard to compete with slave labor, and a country with no rule of law.
Von Mises Jr| 6.1.12 @ 10:10PM
Are you talking about China or America, my freind?
CJW| 6.2.12 @ 11:15AM
Wow, I am writing about China and yet we are heading to a country with no rule of law, thanks to Obama taking over GM, ignoring bankruptcy law, using reconciliation, 5 trillion in debt, issuing regulations, etc.
Von Mises Jr| 6.2.12 @ 12:16PM
Scary when Jim Rogers, my favorite investor, moved to China to secure the future of his children.
They instituted private property rights about 20 years ago and while they still manage the economy to a large extent, the government is embracing capital markets. Obama instead wishes to be Obamao.
R Martin| 6.1.12 @ 8:29AM
Trying to discuss economic logic with the likes of a Paul Krugman is probably a fool’s errand. However, Mr. Tucker hits the nail on the head with this observation:
“The problem here is that modern governments are run by people who can't make these kinds of calculations.”
American voters seem to be the equals of the lenders who continue to purchase Greek bonds—slow learners. They keep returning to congress the same people who got us into this fiscal mess, and now they expect those people to figure-out how to get us out of it. It’s not going to happen, because both political parties are guilty of fiscal malfeasance. It’s going to take new blood and a different mindset in congress. Somewhere, somehow, patriot politicians are going to have to emerge. Perhaps we’re seeing the first glimmer of hope in Wisconsin. We’re certainly not seeing it in California.
Jack of Spades| 6.1.12 @ 9:23AM
It's not that the people in charge can't make the calculations, it's that either they won't or they figure the political calculations make the economic calculations moot. Most of the people receiving government largesse don't worry about how their share will be paid for as long as they get it. The politicians who pander don't worry about that either. But woe to the poor fool who does bring up the subject, e.g. Paul Ryan. Let's face it, politically, doing what needs to be done is a kamikaze mission.
TrueBlue | 6.1.12 @ 1:05PM
And there is the problem. The majority of those elected to office do not have the guts to do what HAS to be done because they are more concerned with keeping their political careers. Of course, what can you expect when a huge number of them have never done ANYTHING except politics for their entire adult lives.
JD| 6.1.12 @ 5:40PM
Wrong. The problem with those in office is that they truly believe that they are right. Why? Because they are the same people they were when they were grassroots populists campaigning amongst the unions and inner city crowds that elected them. We keep electing grassroots populists who promise the world but don't understand the world, and we get precisely the government that one gets when 500 such people are put together and asked to make decisions.
Louis Jenkins| 6.1.12 @ 8:36AM
Louis the XVI and Marie weren't exactly left holding their heads either. And if Mao goes to the guns, you can imagine what will happen when the American citizens goes to retrieve theirs. There's a lot going on behind the scenes, and it ain't pretty. Keep devaluing the dollar Obama, and we'll see.
Louis Jenkins| 6.1.12 @ 9:12AM
That's why I got out of T-Bills Mr. Pecos. An unwise investment.
Read an article by John Galt this am. Here's part of it:
Imagine a world where elderly parents commit suicide so the children will have some properties and material to inherit so they might have the ability to survive just a little bit longer.
Imagine a time where seven year old children are abandoned by their parents on the side of the road with the family pets so some selfish yuppies can maintain the facade of their prior lifestyle.
Imagine an era of American evil where neighbor turns against neighbor to benefit themselves by creating and bearing false witness against them so they may be rewarded by the state, much like the inhabitants of the old Soviet bloc.
Imagine one meal per day of 1000 calories to survive.
Severe stuff. Makes one wonder where we're headed.
Pecos Pete| 6.1.12 @ 8:36AM
Let's see now, inflation is currently 10+% (approx) and headed north and we are expected to invest in T-bills at 1.0something %? I think not. Sooner than later the bill will have to be paid.
Anthony| 6.1.12 @ 9:14AM
Quite right Mr. Tucker, have the moronic Paul Krugman tell it to the Chinese that we "owe it to ourselves".
Chinese fortune cookie says "Princeton professor with ferret eyes, lays big egg". Yep, some ideas are sooo stupid, only an "intellectual" could believe it.
Yes folks, you too can send your kids to Princeton for $60,000 a year to learn at the feet of the Paul Krugman.
Truth to Power| 6.1.12 @ 9:38AM
What should we expect from a former Enron adviser. He is all in on green "energy" and high speed rail. This guy has never seen a boondoggle that he can resist. He can talk himself into any scheme that would scare off anyone with a modicum of common sense. Pretty soon we will sending tax dollars to Nigeria for promising investments. Our universities are a mess. Krugman is the tip of an iceberg.
Fiscal| 6.1.12 @ 9:24AM
No one in government, neither Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives, knows how to add. Democrats spend like there's no tomorrow and Republicans don't want to pay for what they've already spent. The only way to enforce this is with a balanced budget. However, you don't find any top level politician on either side arguing for this lately. Why? Because they ALL like government largesse. Yes, let's have health care free for all. Yes, let's spend more on defense and not pay for it. Even better, let's spend more and cut taxes.
This is all part of a payola for votes strategy for all politicians. At the end of the day, there's really not much difference between any of them.
Truth to Power| 6.1.12 @ 11:42AM
The other day you said that Obama was good on spending now we are all bad. I am not buying your "they are all the same" argument. That will lead us to four more years of President O's incompetence. It is time for a change. President O has got to go. While we're at, we should send a bunch of Democratic Senators home as well. Of course we will replace them with people that can add. We don't want to end up like Greece or Spain or if it really gets bad like California. Bob, you don't sound so confident anymore. In early 2009 you were so confident. It is time to look in the mirror and see that you are a big part of the problem. Have you figured out that 3/5 compromise yet?
Fiscal| 6.1.12 @ 3:32PM
What I said was that if you look at the actual facts, not rhetoric, Obama wasn't so bad -- especially compared with the profligate spending of the Bush administration. I agree that Obama must go and Romney will be SLIGHTLY better on budgeting. But my main reason for supporting Romney is that Obama is a failure at LEADERSHIP. I also agree on replacing the bulk of Democrat Senators. However, because I tend to be libertarian, I have a real problem with right wing social conservatives and this whole thing about abortion, gay marriage, and wanting to invade our personal lives. Therefore, I want a few Dems in there to prevent those things from occurring.
I just don't see Republicans doing that much better given history. I don't like to base my votes on promises -- only actions.
Truth to Power| 6.1.12 @ 5:08PM
Gosh Bob. You have really come around kind of. Bush and Congress were bad but nothing like President O and Congress. We should all be thankful they didn't pass Cap and Trade like a majority of Democrats wanted. By the way abortion and gay marriage wouldn't be a problem if they were both left up to state governments. Who has been trying to forcing their own views through the courts? Why that would be you. Get rid of Roe v Wade and stop trying to push gay marriage through the courts and you won't have to worry about it at the federal level. Democracy is messy but allows a peaceful way to come to agreements. Forcing your views through non-existent parts of the Constitution is a bad idea. The top down stuff usually isn't that tempting to libertarians. I have a real problem with liars Bob and I still remember all your foolishness.
JD| 6.1.12 @ 5:41PM
"They're all the same; throw them all out" is a lazy and uninformed answer.
Derek Leaberry| 6.1.12 @ 9:36AM
Cadaverous radio talk show host Larry King used to say the same things as Paul Krugman years ago. Not that King has a Nobel Prize. However, when men like Krugman and Barack Obama have Nobel Prizes, what value is such a distinction?
John Navratil| 6.1.12 @ 10:22AM
I know! Let's ask Al Gore!
2Anglico| 6.1.12 @ 9:43AM
Even if the budget is balanced today there is still the matter of $16 Trillion of debt plus the "promises" made to us stupid Americans. Dr. Walter E. Williams believes that number approaches $100 Trillion. There is NO way the clowns in Washington will ever deal with the problem.
There are a lot of people who think Krugman is right. This will not end well, sad to say.
Jack London| 6.1.12 @ 9:49AM
I'm beginning to think Tucker has the same low IQ as Lord and Ferrara, because he clearly can't read. What Krugman said was:
"U.S. debt is, to a _large extent_, money we owe to ourselves."
and:
"It’s true that foreigners now hold large claims on the United States, including a fair amount of government debt. But every dollar’s worth of foreign claims on America is matched by 89 cents’ worth of U.S. claims on foreigners. And because foreigners tend to put their U.S. investments into safe, low-yield assets, America actually earns more from its assets abroad than it pays to foreign investors."
and:
"...families have to pay back their debt. Governments don’t — all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base. The debt from World War II was never repaid; it just became increasingly irrelevant as the U.S. economy grew, and with it the income subject to taxation."
and:
"So yes, debt matters. But right now, other things matter more. We need more, not less, government spending to get us out of our unemployment trap. And the wrongheaded, ill-informed obsession with debt is standing in the way."
And if you want to see where obsession with debt gets you, just look at Europe.
John Navratil| 6.1.12 @ 10:20AM
Jack London,
It's difficult to fathom how you judge Tucker's I.Q. based on meretricious arguments of Krugman.
Pp.1 - These debts are not swaps between governments. Why should the U.S. "owe" Germany $1 when Germany "owes" the U.S. the same dollar. The foreign debts are held by individuals. The U.S. government debt is also held by individuals. It's appealing to suggest that bond defaults stick it to those who were paid the premium until you realize those are often pensions and other holding of the "little people."
Pp.2 - To argue that inflating away the debt isn't taking the wealth of those holding dollars is ludicrous. Those holding bonds were most assuredly paid back. Whether the investment was good or not is reflected in the future bond rates which, of course, affects future spending.
Pp.3 - This simple begs the question. Classic Krugman. "Now that I've baffled you with B-S, let me dazzle you with an unsupported conclusion!"
Your concluding observation is vague. Do you suggest that we can avoid being like Europe if we spend as Krugman suggests? That's been called kicking the can down the road. I call it kicking ourselves in the behind.
Bob K| 6.1.12 @ 10:28AM
Jack London,
Read the last paragraph of the article. What will you do if someone asks you for some of your money to pay a debt instead of asking Paul Krugman? After all, we are all in this together. We owe it to ourselves.
Jack London| 6.1.12 @ 10:39AM
John and Bob,
you're both misunderstanding the key point, which is what it isn't a terrible thing for governments to carry debt and they can do so for a long time, and that the last thing you want to do in a recession is go on an austerity drive that stifles demand and halts recovery.
In his column today Krugman explains how Britain has fallen for the austerity line. But he also notes that this focus on debt is in any case a red herring:
"So the austerity drive in Britain isn’t really about debt and deficits at all; it’s about using deficit panic as an excuse to dismantle social programs. And this is, of course, exactly the same thing that has been happening in America."
John Navratil| 6.1.12 @ 11:04AM
Jack London,
No one argues against holding any debt. Anyone with a mortgage recognizes the usefulness of those who will loan money today with the expectation of repayment with interest tomorrow. When you trash your credit or reduce your bond rating, expect the interest to rise. That's what is happening in Europe. When you can no longer service your debt you are bankrupt, bond holders do NOT get repaid and your borrowing cost become infinite. No amount of wishful thinking and can kicking will get you past that point. It is collapse. It has happened before - look at Weimar Germany.
You quote Krugman again and say this is just an excuse to dismantle social programs. Again, he has the tail wagging the dog. Those social programs will get dismantled one way or the other. Do you want to do it the easy way or the hard way. The easy way today becomes, inevitably, the hard way tomorrow. The politicians live only for today.
As a completely separate issue, for Krugman to lament Britain's falling for the austerity line is to ignore what has been going on since World War II in that, once great, land.
Skippy| 6.1.12 @ 3:45PM
"So the austerity drive in Britain isn’t really about debt and deficits at all; it’s about using deficit panic as an excuse to dismantle social programs."
That's a bad thing...why?
Social programs are bankrupting America and the world.
John Navratil| 6.1.12 @ 4:23PM
Skippy,
I agree. I presume you were responding to Jack London.
John Navratil| 6.1.12 @ 11:08AM
Jack London,
PS. There is a difference between going on an austerity drive and increasing the national debt by $5 Trillion. If deficit spending was the solution, one would have thought the Bush and Obama years would have us all drinking free Bubble-Up and eating that Rainbow Stew.
Drunken Sailor| 6.1.12 @ 11:48AM
Now that's rich. I seem to recall all the Liberals and Obama screaming about all the spending Bush was doing while in office and how it was bad for our country. Bad old Bush blew the Surplus Clinton left us with. Isn't that how the story went?
But now that "The one" is in office, debt is good, don't worry about it, we don't even need to get back to having a surplus because that would hurt the economy.
The mental backflips to justify what was once railed against are simply amazing to watch.
DRed| 6.1.12 @ 11:53AM
DS, the basic idea is that it's not a good idea to run up debts when the economy is doing well. Debt is not inherently good or bad.
John Navratil| 6.1.12 @ 2:09PM
DRed,
The only reason our interest payments aren't eating up the budget is because we are printing money. This level of debt is inherently bad.
DRed| 6.1.12 @ 2:35PM
My point was that there's no need to do mental backflips to oppose running up debt while unemployment is low and the economy is doing fine and advocate it during a recession.
Is this level of debt bad enough that you'd be willing to pay more taxes to reduce the debt?
John Navratil| 6.1.12 @ 2:58PM
DRed,
Nope! My preference is to cut, cut, cut spending. Even the left, which has long claimed the only way to balance a budget is through tax increases, now claims the "adult" approach is compromise.
I remember the Reagan/O'Neill compromise which promised spending cuts for tax increases. We got the taxes, but the budget never shrank, did it? Bush-1 was convinced by Darman that taxes would reduce the deficit, wasn't he?
Fool me one... fool me twice... I hope we don't get fooled again.
As always the choice is to give tax deductions to the corporate jet owners while throwing Grandma over the cliff. SOS-DD.
Jack London| 6.1.12 @ 4:22PM
John,
surely we are cutting discretionary government spending quite sharply and many public sector jobs have been cut in the last 2-3 years. That leaves the entitlements - and i don't see how taking an ax to these will help the recovery - quite the reverse. In fact the overall public sector picture is already pitching us backwards, as there is no way the rise in private sector jobs can cover all the public layoffs. We have to stimulate demand and stop cutting jobs.
John Navratil| 6.1.12 @ 4:51PM
Jack London,
Just how much more stimulus to we need, or can we stand? Taking money out of the economy through taxes or inflation, filtering it through the government and "investing" it has been shown by this administration to be a failure - just as it was in the 30's. The only beneficiary is the crony capitalist.
Jack London| 6.1.12 @ 5:22PM
Don't forget John it was your side that killed the American Jobs Act last year, which would added at least 1.3m jobs according to independent analysts. Your 'solution' is what exactly?
John Navratil| 6.1.12 @ 6:50PM
Jack London,
You make me laugh! My side isn't in Washington. To take the bait however, the American Jobs Act was an increase in government spending and patronage funded by shifting taxes and tax credits around in order to support the unions and funded by illusory deficit reductions - a complete joke and rightly rejected along with every budget this joker of a President submits.
Jack London| 6.2.12 @ 9:51AM
So you're just on the side of doing nothing then. You're wrong about last year's jobs and infrastructure proposals - even conservative economists said they had merit.
I reckon you're just one of the useless crowd you want to scupper any helpful measure to get Obama out. But then what? Answer comes there none.
John Navratil| 6.2.12 @ 2:07PM
Jack London,
And I reckon you are a fool... so there! What sort of idiot completes an argument by proclaiming what his antagonist thinks?
Speak for your own self and name a conservative economist and his argument for the American Jobs Act. There was support for payroll tax reduction, but not for adding to the deficit to pay for it.
Jack London| 6.2.12 @ 4:56PM
That's because there is a foolish belief that the deficit is more important than recovery.
I'm still waiting for you to spell out how entitlement cuts - which I think is the only thing you've proposed - would fuel demand and create jobs.
DRed| 6.1.12 @ 4:47PM
So the deficit is a terrible problem that must be solved, but you're unwilling to make a small sacrifice for it?
Personally, I think that the best way to reduce the deficit would be to get people back to work. Corporate profits have been strong for several years now, but hiring hasn't picked up. I'm not sure how slashing government spending is going to help increase aggregate demand or get people jobs.
John Navratil| 6.1.12 @ 5:10PM
DRed,
Your "small" is another man's "big". Corporations are sitting on cash and not hiring because of uncertainty in their largest cost exposure. I'm not a rich man. I work as a contract employee. My direct Federal, State and Local tax burden is just shy of 50% of income - that does not include indirect taxes, fees, tolls, and excises. How much more should I pay?
I don't think we should get rid of all government spending. How about we start with the Depts. of Energy and Education? Have they done anything for you lately? Don't you think the country would be better of with Steven Chu trapping molecules with laser light in the private sector than telling people to paint their roofs white?
Jack London| 6.1.12 @ 5:33PM
John, without government funding of high risk research - which isn't done by he private sector - in energy, medicine etc - we really would be totally lost. And frankly the way that some states are already directing public funds into weird private religious cult schools scares me.
Truth to Power| 6.1.12 @ 9:22PM
Obama wasn't funding research. He was funding his money bundlers in business operations. Our cult government schools scare me.
DRed| 6.1.12 @ 5:52PM
The department of energy budget is something like 25 billion dollars. Assuming you want to keep the money that goes towards our nuclear arsenal (around 10 billion), you've just saved 15 billion dollars a year. Assuming that money is totally non-productive, it doesn't make a dent in the deficit.
Truth to Power| 6.1.12 @ 5:10PM
You choose Greece and Spain or worse California. We get it.
John Navratil| 6.1.12 @ 5:16PM
DRed,
Oops! ... just shy of 40% of income...
DRed| 6.1.12 @ 5:54PM
See John, you've got plenty of money to spare!
John Navratil| 6.1.12 @ 6:42PM
Tell that to my mortgage holder and utility companies ;)
Dai Alanye | 6.1.12 @ 12:00PM
Debt, like fire, is a wonderful tool when properly used. But once you've burned the furniture and are starting on the siding, it's time to dress more warmly.
Krugman fails to comprehend this.
Truth to Power| 6.2.12 @ 6:47PM
He comprehends but he plan to burn your furniture and siding.
JD| 6.1.12 @ 5:52PM
So even in the end, Krugman's argument is based on the belief that spending is the answer to unemployment. That has never been true. The fact is, even if we had no debt or deficits, the spending being done by our government is harmful to the economy. The money is better kept in the hands of the people than taxed and redistributed by government.
But debt is not as harmless as Krugman suggests. He seems completely ignorant of the concept of opportunity cost.
Bob K| 6.1.12 @ 9:53AM
'Did you get that? We can ignore future commitments to Medicare and social Security because.....what the heck,--we can always cut benefits or raise tax rates to something like 90%. All that will be required is the "political will." '
For sure Jim Horney, (you idiot!) for sure!
All we need to do is to build some tumbrils, some guillotines and cut heads too! All that is required is the political will!
Anthony| 6.1.12 @ 10:29AM
"We need more, not less, government spending to get us out of our unemployment trap".
Funny how so called "progressives" like Jack London, his Enron advising pal Paul Krugman, along with the Kenyan Muslim Marxist, remain trapped in the failed policies of the "great" FDR.
Unemployment never dropped below 10% during the "great" FDR's failed administration of Kenysian spending. 17.5% unemployment on 12/7/ 1941.
Hey Jack, to quote a fellow writer, E.E. Cummings, it took a "Niponized piece of the 5th Ave. L" to have finally gotten American's back to work.
Maybe that's America's only hope, more lefties getting a "Niponied piece of the ole 5th Ave. L".
Fiscal| 6.1.12 @ 10:56AM
You need to get past the rhetoric here -- that's only for politics. In fact, both Reagan and Bush grew the federal government dramatically. Just take a look at federal spending over the past 50 years and you'll see it has risen consistently no matter who is in charge. When you look at the actual data, there is no difference between the parties -- except what they say (lie to you) to get elected. While Republicans/Conservatives trash Keynesian policies, that's exactly when they actually use when they govern.
John Navratil| 6.1.12 @ 11:29AM
Fiscal,
Deficits began in earnest with the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. That is when the President became obligated to spend everything "authorized" in the budget. Nixon had used his authority to avoid spending on things he didn't like and Congress responded. Prior to 1994, the Democrats controlled the budget process. Reagan sent balanced budgets every year he was in office for Tip O'Neill to declare dead on arrival.
The only time the budgets came under any semblance on control was when the Republicans took the House for the first time in forty years in 1994. That Bush should spend so profligately with the acquiescence of a Republican House and Senate gave Conservatives fits, contributed to losses in '04 and '06 and, arguably, kept McCain out of the White House - not altogether a bad thing, but likely better than what we have.
The last big recession in the early 80's was noted by its depth (it was deeper in terms of unempolyment), its brevity (it lasted 24 months) and a lack of Keynesian intervention.
It's quite true that the Republicans thoroughly trashed their brand during the Bush years. That's why there is a Tea Party.
Fiscal| 6.1.12 @ 11:43AM
Generally, I agree. However, federal spending rose at the same rate in the early 80's as both before and after. Whether you have a politically defined "stimulus", or you just spend, there is really no difference. When spending rises at the same rate, you are practicing Keynesian economics no matter what you call it.
I have not seen a "Tea Party Budget Proposal". Certainly Ryan's budget follows Keynesian policies as it only slightly slows the rate of growth. Romney's budget actually creates greater debt than Obama's. I've never seen the Tea Party argue for lower payments to seniors or lower military spending -- by far the largest parts of our budget.
JD| 6.1.12 @ 11:55AM
Your numbers are half-truths. Reagan inherited a hugely inflationary situation. If you account for inflation, he spent less than his contemporaries.
Fiscal| 6.1.12 @ 3:34PM
Actually, over the 8 years, this is not true. Look at spending and deficits as a proportion of GDP.
John Navratil| 6.1.12 @ 1:33PM
Fiscal,
Keynes argued deficit spending during economic slumps. He died before he could remind politicians to run a surplus during growth periods to service that debt. Keynes argued for a lot of other discredited ideas, like burying cash in bottles. I don't think your definition is correct.
The Chicago school, which rejects Keynes, has no difficulty deficit spending so long as the debt can be serviced in the future. I have no difficulty with a "shovel ready project" so long as it isn't digging a hole just to fill it in. It turns out those were a bit hard to find, didn't it?
We agree that Ryan's budget merely slows the rate of growth. Even proposals to cap spending at 2008 levels will see debt increase. See Table 3.1 at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals. Total expenditures on the military and human resources has gone from parity in non-war years to a ratio of almost 4:1 spending on human resources as on national defence. Entitlements have gone from 30% of the budget before Johnson's Great Society to 2/3 of the budget today.
I argue that spending on entitlements must be cut drastically. Means testing is required. I will observe that military spending (the only Constitionally authorized spending), at less than a third of entitlements or 20% of the budget, is not the source for budgetary salvation. The explosion is in Social Security payments which now exceeds total defense spending and is 1/3 of all entitlement spending.
Fiscal| 6.1.12 @ 3:39PM
John, can you define deficit spending? It is when you spend more than you take in. There is no ideological component to the definition. Reagan and Bush increased their deficits more than any previous President. That said, you've seen my diatribes that entitlement spending must be cut. Where I disagree is that we must also cut defense (and defense related) spending -- perhaps not as much, but you can't reduce the budget by 40% leaving defense spending alone. You can't cut the interest payments, you know.
John Navratil| 6.1.12 @ 4:06PM
Fiscal,
Milton Friedman once said that every dollar spent by government is a tax. In some sense everything is deficit spending. I accept your fiscal definition. As spending authorizations originate from the House and spending is mandatory, I take exception to naming a deficit for any President; Obama included. Normally I'd say the current deficit is the Boehner deficit. However, the Senate has completely shirked its obligations to move on a budget which leaves use with continuing resolutions perpetuating the last Pelosi budget in some transmogrified form. Ryan's cuts, as little as they may be, have been completely blocked by Reid.
We agree more than we disagree to be sure. I hope we both are finding something of value in this exchange. I do not rule out military cuts. As I consider national defense more important than entitlements - you can't draw Social Security or welfare from your conqueror, and considering the relative size of entitlements, I am loathe to cut military spending - certainly not as a first resort or in equal measure to entitlements. How and where we cut is a political question in which I am but one voice. I will be voting in November.
Again we agree that interest payments are untouchable. They had been rising sharply until the Fed began monetizing the debt. The fiscal danger ahead has been shrouded in fog.
JD| 6.1.12 @ 5:48PM
Fiscal unduly attributes deficits to presidents currently in office and neglects to account for inflation in his analyses. As for defense spending, it is an absolute straw man that any conservative is against all defense cuts. At the same time, defense is THE most vital function of government, without which nothing else can exist. It should be properly funded, even at the expense of virtually all other functions (especially the things government shouldn't be doing at all).
In other words, defense cuts should be made to eliminate waste, not to preserve social welfare.
Kwan| 6.1.12 @ 10:54AM
Paul Krugman proposes reality disposes. Krugman is essentially a political economist his off the wall theories like all leftist fantasy is far removed from the real world of dollars and cents. Krugman would have us believe that an ever expanding mega-leviathan government ruling over a population of hapless serfs is in the best interest of all of us. The left depends on such useful idiots to keep the saps, suckers, and morons mesmerized while the world about them collapses.
Drunken Sailor| 6.1.12 @ 11:50AM
I stopped reading at "Paul Krugman" because who in their right mind listens to that idiot?
JD| 6.1.12 @ 11:53AM
A solid half of the US federal debt is owed to bondholders who are US citizens, so in that sense, we do owe money to ourselves. Of course, these bondholders are invariably among the richer Americans, and the eternal strategy of the Democrats is to raise taxes on the rich to deal with the deficit. That is, they intend to pay our creditors with their own money!
So you can see why they want us to say "we owe it to ourselves". They want us to think that way to justify their tax plans!
Anthony| 6.1.12 @ 12:09PM
Funny, how when the ship is sinking, the left finally believes in bi--partisanship, that is; YOU PEOPLE DID IT TOO.... NA,NA,NA,NA.
nathan| 6.1.12 @ 12:59PM
May I once again make a constitutional point of order here folks? JD said "Reagan spent . . ." I will state again and again and again and again that there are no presidential deficits, not even with the incumbent. Dust off your copy of the Constitution. Now repeat after me, all spending bills originate where? With the president? No. With the Senate? No. In the House. YES!!!!
Presidents, the current one included are free to propose any budget they wish but constitutionally lack independent authority to spend funds not specifically authorized by Congress and those bills must originate in the House. The only authority any president has is to sign spending bills or veto them and then spend money authorized in such bills such as the stimulus bills passed several years ago improperly attributed to the incumbent. Those bills originated in the House first, went to the Senate and only then did the president sign them and implement them. We can talk about Pelosi deficits, Boehner deficits but constitutionally there is no such animal as a presidential deficit.
Class dismissed.
John Navratil| 6.1.12 @ 2:14PM
nathan,
Bingo!
But what do you do when the Senate ignores the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Control act, refuses to act on a budget and funds the government on continuing resolutions? The Origination clause is intended to keep the budget close to the intent of the electorate. The Senate thwarts it and the President moves money from agency to agency as he likes.
Elections do have consequences. I'm impatiently waiting for November 6.
cicero| 6.1.12 @ 2:40PM
Great! Now we can be just like Europe. Isn't that what our fearless leaders wanted all along. I think it goes something like this: You sell your bonds to whatever fool is willing to buy them, and use the money to keep the streets from rioting, and the poiticians in power. When you can't pay the money due on the bonds, the get the bond holders to take 30 cents on the dollar, and the the banks to buy your next round of soveriegn debt (more bonds) with money loaned to the banks by the national treasury. Eventually the shell game ends, but by that time the taxpayers will have gotten dizzy, taken their eyes off of the mark, and will be stuck with the debt. As usual, the bankers will lament their fates, will give up their last bonus (maybe not), and retire to their estates. The poor will always get their pittance, while the middle class will be wiped out, and left to eat their children. The politicians will blame it all on their predecessors, and promise to make all right if only they are put in charge.
Derek Leaberry| 6.1.12 @ 4:51PM
Funny that the "conservative" David Frum agrees with Krugman. But I won't go to his web site to find out. It is Friday and I won't stand for torture.
JD| 6.1.12 @ 5:44PM
Frum abandoned conservatism long ago. He's just carrying the label so that he and his new liberal sponsors can say "look, here's a conservative who agrees that Republicans are the devil!"
It's all part of their electioneering.
chips| 6.1.12 @ 5:38PM
Another reason not to listen to Krugman:
http://www.americanthinker.com.....ugman.html
Butch Muppet| 6.2.12 @ 12:20PM
I asked my dad nearly fifty years ago who we owed the debt to and he gave me the stock answer.. "to ourselves"
... he was a survivor of the Depression, FDR and WWII.
Of course I believed my dad who lived a lifestyle that I emulated, but it always stuck with me once I figured it out over how could an educated man and others I respect hold such a stupid concept?
Institutionalized propaganda with little or no counterpoint position tends to do just that..
I wonder how many kids my age remember being instructed by the same government propaganda machine to duck under a desk in the event of a nuclear attack?
Now we have great sites like "Krugman in Wonderland" to counter these obvious shibboleths when we hear them.. something my father didn't have I guess and to be fair he was too busy trying to support a family on a public teachers salary to give something with implications far in the future much thought.
If Obama cannot control the internet and who counts the vote he knows he is done...
...keep your powder dry.
maillot de bain pas cher | 6.5.12 @ 5:24AM
England by John Maynard Keynes. The politicians wrung their hands in gratitude. Depicting the intoxicating political consequences of Lord Keynes's discovery, the wry cartoonist of the Washington Times Herald drew a memorable picture. In the center, sitting on a throne in front of a maypole, was a jubilant FDR, cigarette tilted up almost vertically,
Frank Deliquo | 7.2.12 @ 12:18AM
Exactly right. Great to read an author who does not suffer from the pervasive intellectual malaise regarding government debt.
I have more on this topic here:
http://www.insofisma.com/wp2/m.....ourselves/