Paul Krugman Gets It Wrong – Again

David Horowitz's NewsRealBlog.com ^ | July 16, 2010 | JOSEPH KLEIN

[Rhonda Robinson]

Paul Krugman, the liberal pro-spending economist, wrote an op-ed article today for the New York Times entitled “Redo that Voodoo.” Krugman argues that across-the-board tax cuts do not work and praised President Clinton’s tax increases that he initiated early in his first term. Krugman thinks that Obama is on the right course, but not doing enough spending.

In order to debunk what he considers to be the myth of President Reagan’s economic success through across-the-board tax cuts, Krugman produced the chart below and accompanying explanation in his blog earlier this week, which purport to show that the Carter years as a whole were better than the Reagan years that followed. He conveniently omitted to mention the 21% interest rates and high unemployment that strict monetary policies combined with Reagan’s across-the-board tax cuts reversed.

Here is Krugman’s “proof” of his pro-Carter, anti-Reagan thesis:

[Larry Lucido]

Again???? Your blog, on drugs.

[Lurker]

Krugman is refusing to learn from history. We all know what happens to people who do that.

Personally I hope that Krugman and his ilk get to re-experience the French Revolution up close and personal like.

L

[shibumi]

Spam-A-Lot?

[shibumi]

Does the term “kanly” mean anything to you?

[harpu]

Headline...

Paul Krugman Gets It Wrong – STILL!

...fixed.

[alrea]

Krugman denies that tax cuts cause growth. Some economists respect him. Can someone supply data showing that tax cuts result in growth?

[okie01]

Can someone supply data showing that tax cuts result in growth?

Three major tax cuts -- Kennedy, Reagan and Bush --have been followed by healthy and sustained economic growth.

And, when you stop and think about it, it's a common sense proposition that individuals invest their money more wisely than does the government.

What more proof do you need?

[50mm]

That reminds me. Click the picture:

[Intolerant in NJ]

.” Krugman argues that across-the-board tax cuts do not work and praised President Clinton’s tax increases that he initiated early in his first term...Clinton's tax increases "worked" only because he had a Republican congress which made him balance the budget with spending cuts, and because he had the luxury of spending the "peace dividend", redirecting funds from the military to lavish domestic programs. Nonetheless. by the end of his term we were in recession. Bush's across the board tax cuts decreased the federal deficit which had grown because of 911, the need to rebuild the military and the Clinton recession from 500 billion to 100 billion in four years - Krugman is a dolt......

[hinckley buzzard]

The Carter years were wonderful--double digit interest rates, 18% mortgages, unemployment, gas lines, 55 mph, welfare cheese, grocery store cans with plain black and white labels that said "Beans" or "Corn" even well below the usual store brands, these were true Brand X commodities.

Yeah we loved the Carter years. Krugman must have been on drugs and not noticed.

[Nat Turner]

And do not for get the Great Depression of 1920!

[Nat Turner]

And do not for get the Great Depression of 1920!

[hinckley buzzard]

The 60's after the Kennedy tax cuts. The 80's after the Reagan tax cuts. The 00's after the Bush tax cuts.

To those theoreticians who deny these pervasive historic realities, I offer the observation of Thomas Huxley, who said, "Nothing so sad as a beautiful theory, slain by an ugly fact."

[alrea]

What more proof do you need?

Numbers would be good. Krugman says this in the column:

Is it really possible that all the triumphant declarations that the Reagan tax cuts led to a revenue boom — declarations that you see in highly respectable places — are based on nothing but a failure to make the most elementary corrections for inflation and population growth? Yes, it is. I know we’re supposed to pretend that we’re having a serious discussion in this country; but the truth is that we aren’t.

[alrea]

In the 90’s the economy didn’t exactly go down the oval office sink. Krugman talks about 40% growth per year.

[humblegunner]

(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...

Why the excerpt? Bloggies don't need to be excerpted.

And as for your profile page.. why do you write about yourself in the third person?

Delusions of grandeur much?