Skip to main content

View Diary: Krugman: Dwindling Deficit Disorder (135 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  full employment doesn't last (0+ / 0-)

    Are we to rack up debt every recession and let it roll over forever until the percentage of revenue we pay on interest overwhelms the budget?

    I agree now isn't the time but I don't understand spending such a large portion of our nations revenue on debt interest in perpetuity. It's another manner of transferring wealth to rich t-bill holders and foreign interests.

    Middle class growing policy has got to escape the confines of taxation and budget concerns and move into regulatory statutes.

    Entitlement reform should not be a choice between making it's funding a more progressive tax scheme or reducing benefits, but through incentives and regulations that promote the growth of incomes in the lower brackets that capture FICA payments.

    Small increases in lower and middle class incomes will expand revenue dramatically.

    •  During full employment, we pay down debt (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fisheye, BradyB, elwior

      It's been done before, most recently during the mid to late 90's.  It's fairly simple.  

      It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them. FDR

      by Betty Pinson on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 11:27:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A deficit budget never pays down the debt (0+ / 0-)

        so when Krugman talks about a sustainable deficit he isn't explicit in how that pays down the long term debt, even if paying off cyclical debt is implicit in his commentary, as you suggest.

        •  In the 90's, Clinton/Gore ran a budget surplus (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          they used that to pay down the debt.

          You can look it up.  That's what happens when you avoid unnecessary, illegal wars, raise taxes on the wealthy and fix the economy.

          That was the final straw for the GOP, they were furious They couldn't stand to see the federal government turning a profit and paying off debt.  That's why they were so passionate about getting Bush II selected, so they could take all that money away from the federal government and taxpayers.

          It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them. FDR

          by Betty Pinson on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 12:07:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sry I am losing track here. (0+ / 0-)

            A surplus is not a deficit. The word surplus does not arise in Krugman's article. And he does not explain what he means by "sustainable deficit", so I can't look that up. Is it a deficit that is counterbalanced by a cyclical surplus? Does it take into account the long term debt?

            Bear in mind that the budget doesn’t have to be balanced to put us on a fiscally sustainable path; all we need is a deficit small enough that debt grows more slowly than the economy.
            Fiscal sustainability is not a reason by itself for long term revolving debt.
            •  Ok, bye (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              elwior, BradyB

              I can see you're not interested in a fact-based discussion.

              It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them. FDR

              by Betty Pinson on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 12:34:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Long term debt? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Who gives a shit right now?  We have an economy that is facing a very real JOBS deficit and all the deficit scolds seem to do is increase that deficit by laying off government workers.  How stupid is that?  We need more jobs so the solution is to lay people off.

              Only in Conservatardia!  Down is up!  Black is white!  Jobs are created by getting rid of them!  Revenue is raised by cutting it!

     can we have an honest debate in this country when one side are nothing but posturing, incompetent, hypocritical malcontents?

              •  U.S. debt produces Chinese (0+ / 0-)

                jobs not American jobs, and exacerbates wealth disparities, here and globally, unless you buy into wacko trickle down conservative economic theory, that up is down and blah blah. You won't find many credible progressive economists or Democratic politicians who agree with Republican debt building. So I pointed out an issue that Krugman avoided in his article.

                I clearly didn't claim it was an immediate priority, or contradict Krugman's deficit advice, but I do realize raising questions to a Paul Krugman analysis is immediate hay for straw man construction. So carry on.

    •  Why don't we try it and see how it goes. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fisheye, elwior

      We've already tried deficit reduction, and so have others. Things still suck. Let's try what has, in the past, been at least a partial solution. Let's not let the perfect, which we haven't yet imagined, be the enemy of the good, which has worked fairly well before when dealing with economic contraction.

      if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 11:30:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site