Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Krugman: Bush's Deficit Bad, Obama's Deficit Good
Townhall.com ^ | February 11, 2010 | Larry Elder

Posted on 02/11/2010 4:11:43 AM PST by Kaslin

Left-wing economist, Nobel laureate and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman hates deficits in tough economic times -- when the president of the United States is named George W. Bush.

Krugman, in a November 2004 interview, criticized the "enormous" Bush deficit. "We have a world-class budget deficit," he said, "not just as in absolute terms, of course -- it's the biggest budget deficit in the history of the world -- but it's a budget deficit that, as a share of GDP, is right up there."

The numbers? The deficit in fiscal year 2004 -- $413 billion, 3.5 percent of the gross domestic product.

Back then, a disapproving Krugman called the deficit "comparable to the worst we've ever seen in this country. ... The only time postwar that the United States has had anything like these deficits is the middle Reagan years, and that was with unemployment close to 10 percent." Take away the Social Security surplus spent by the government, he said, and "we're running at a deficit of more than 6 percent of GDP, and that is unprecedented."

He considered the Bush tax cuts irresponsible and a major contributor -- along with two wars -- to the deficit. But he also warned of the growing cost of autopilot entitlements: "We have the huge bulge in the population that starts to collect benefits. ... If there isn't a clear path towards fiscal sanity well before (the next decade), then I think the financial markets are going to say, 'Well, gee, where is this going?'"

Three months earlier, Krugman said, "Here we are more than 2 1/2 years after the official end of the recession, and we're still well below, of course, pre-Bush employment." In October 2004, unemployment was 5.5 percent and continued to slowly decline. At the time, Krugman described the economy as "weak," with "job creation ... essentially nonexistent."

How bad will it get? If we don't get our "financial house in order," he said, "I think we're looking for a collapse of confidence some time in the not-too-distant future."

Fast-forward to 2010.

The numbers: projected deficit for fiscal year 2010 -- over $1.5 trillion, more than 10 percent of GDP.

This sets a post-WWII record in both absolute numbers and as a percentage of GDP. And if the Obama administration's optimistic projections of the economic growth fall short, things will get much worse. So what does Krugman say now?

We must guard against "deficit hysteria." In "Fiscal Scare Tactics," his recent column, Krugman writes: "These days it's hard to pick up a newspaper or turn on a news program without encountering stern warnings about the federal budget deficit. The deficit threatens economic recovery, we're told; it puts American economic stability at risk; it will undermine our influence in the world. These claims generally aren't stated as opinions, as views held by some analysts but disputed by others. Instead, they're reported as if they were facts, plain and simple."

He continues, "And fear-mongering on the deficit may end up doing as much harm as the fear-mongering on weapons of mass destruction." Krugman believes Bush lied us into the Iraq War. Just as people unreasonably feared Saddam Hussein, they now have an unwarranted fear of today's deficit.

Questions: Didn't Krugman, less than six years ago, call the deficit "enormous"? Wouldn't he, therefore, consider a $1.5 trillion deficit at 10 percent of GDP mega-normous? Didn't he describe the economy with 5.5 percent unemployment as "weak"? Isn't the current economy, at 9.7 percent unemployment, even weaker? If the 2004 deficit was "comparable to the worst we've ever seen in this country," wouldn't today's much bigger deficit cause even more heartburn?

Nope. Now a huge deficit is actually a good thing: "The point is that running big deficits in the face of the worst economic slump since the 1930s is actually the right thing to do. If anything, deficits should be bigger than they are because the government should be doing more than it is to create jobs." The deficit "should be bigger"?!

Long term, Krugman says, we've got concerns about revenue and spending. But as for now? "There's no reason to panic about budget prospects for the next few years, or even for the next decade." In 2004, Krugman warned that without a "clear path towards fiscal sanity" before "the next decade," we faced a "crunch." Presumably, we now have this "clear path."

Let's review. In 2004, an unhappy Krugman criticized Bush's "weak" economy and "miserable" job creation. Running an "enormous" deficit was a bad thing. Times were awful -- "by a large margin" the worst job crash and performance since Herbert Hoover. Today the deficit is four times as large in an even weaker economy with much higher unemployment. Times are awful. Now, though, the deficit is a good thing and should be even bigger.

Krugman's flip-flop on the deficit demonstrates a modern economic equation. Hatred of Bush + love for Obama = intellectual dishonesty.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: bhodeficit; krugman; larryelder
It shows you the left is totally dishonest
1 posted on 02/11/2010 4:11:43 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

..and the democratic controlled Congress since 2006 deficit?


2 posted on 02/11/2010 4:16:52 AM PST by Doogle (USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Krugman deserved his Nobel just as much as Al Gore and Yasir Arafat.

What a joke.


3 posted on 02/11/2010 4:21:15 AM PST by Travis McGee (----www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Excellent piece of reporting! It doesn’t even cause a blink of an eye anymore when realizing the absolute sheer hypocrisy of these loony liberal elitist prix. Not only do they have no shame, they have no cooth at all!


4 posted on 02/11/2010 4:22:53 AM PST by sirchtruth (Freedom is not free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth

Does anyone in the MSM confront Krugman with these facts and hold him accountable? Of course not...


5 posted on 02/11/2010 4:26:22 AM PST by Russ (Repeal the 17th amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Doogle

Not since 2006, but 2007. Remember the election was November 7, 2006 and they came into power in January 2007 when the new Congress started


6 posted on 02/11/2010 4:28:38 AM PST by Kaslin (Acronym for Obama: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
krugman... bad for America and evil... hussein... bad for America and evil... Palin=the way out!

LLS

7 posted on 02/11/2010 4:31:52 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (hussama will never be my president... NEVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doogle
..and the democratic controlled Congress since 2006 deficit?

Oh, come on, Doogle! You can't throw facts in to this.....peoples feeeeeeelings are at stake.

8 posted on 02/11/2010 5:12:52 AM PST by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

How about the most recent recipient, Obama himself, the melatonin-rich,Marxist,mendicant?


9 posted on 02/11/2010 5:14:57 AM PST by JeanLM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Puppage

*tsk tsk*


10 posted on 02/11/2010 5:20:31 AM PST by Doogle (USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JeanLM

How could I forget!


11 posted on 02/11/2010 5:22:23 AM PST by Travis McGee (----www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Doogle

You can hear the poppong sound as Krugman pulls his head out of BO’s a$$ just long enough to write this crap...


12 posted on 02/11/2010 5:23:50 AM PST by maddog55 (OBAMA, Why stupid people shouldn't vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: maddog55
...soon he'll give up writing all together
13 posted on 02/11/2010 5:27:54 AM PST by Doogle (USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

There’s an easy explanation for Krugman’s mendacity: he’s a leftist ideologue i.e. a lunatic.


14 posted on 02/11/2010 8:10:22 AM PST by driftless2 (for long term happiness, learn how to play the accordion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Krugman DUMB!


15 posted on 02/11/2010 3:26:18 PM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson