Posted on 04/20/2018 7:13:33 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Stop me if you’ve heard this before. A G.O.P. presidential candidate loses the popular vote, but somehow ends up in the White House anyway. Despite his dubious legitimacy, his allies in Congress take advantage of his election to ram through a huge tax cut that blows up the budget deficit while disproportionately benefiting the wealthy. While the big bucks go to the big incomes, however, the tax bill does throw some crumbs at the middle class, and Republicans try to sell the bill as a boon to working families.
So far this account applies equally to George W. Bush and Donald Trump. But then the story takes a turn. The Bush sales job was effective: While the 2001 tax cut wasn’t overwhelmingly popular, more people approved than disapproved, and it provided the G.O.P. with at least a modest political boost. But the Trump tax cut was unpopular from the start — in fact, less popular than past tax hikes.
And this tax cut doesn’t seem to be winning more support over time. Most Americans say they don’t see any positive effect on their paychecks. Public approval of the tax cut seems, if anything, to be falling rather than rising. And Republicans have pretty much stopped even mentioning the bill on the campaign trail.
Which raises the question: Why doesn’t snake oil sell like it used to?
In the past, deficit hypocrisy was an important weapon in the G.O.P. political arsenal. Both parties talked about fiscal responsibility, but only Democrats practiced it, actually paying for policy initiatives like Obamacare. Yet Democrats were punished for doing the right thing — remember “they’re taking $500 billion from Medicare”? — while Republicans seemingly paid no price for their cynicism. Voters focused on the extra money in their pockets,
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Has Krugman ever been right about anything?
Well ... the media didn't like it. Everyone else did.
Speaking of Snake Oil salesman, Krugman seems to be a good candidate today, as David Brooks is off again.
Gawd, I wished I could include a long list of emojis to describe Krugman now....
Someone this biased is not an “economist” nor a “Journ-O-List”
More like a “Communist”
RE: Has Krugman ever been right about anything?
Well, he won a Nobel Prize in Economics....
The morning routine is now coffee and Leftist B. S.
Obama won a Nobel prize too.
Yes, so did Yaser Arafat.
But people will argue that there’s a difference between the Prize in Economics ( less subjective ) than the one for Peace.
And if Trump gets elected, the stock market will drop and never recover.
I should listen to a character that doesn’t understand the Electoral College?
And Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize — for doing nothing!
And so did Al Gore — talk about snake oil salesmen!
Stop right there.
Paul Krugman does not understand, or does not believe in, the U.S. constitution and its provisions for the electoral college. He has no business trying to explain anything to Americans that do.
OK, stop.
Krud man speaks.
RE: And if Trump gets elected, the stock market will drop and never recover.
Was this one of Krugman’s “famous” (note the quotes) predictions?
I don’t know what he’s talking about. I’m getting $200 extra a month, and that pays for all the gas on my commute to work and back. I like it, I support it, I don’t consider it crumbs, and... I just don’t get liberals at all. If Obama gave us $35 we’d be expected to fall down in gratitude.
A Nobel prize for peace, while he set the middle east on fire (Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Libya), provided billions to the purveyors of jihad in Iran, simultaneously setting off a mass invasion of Europe by north African and middle eastern men to rape, stab and pillage Europe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.