Bush cut taxes the first time because the economy was doing well.
Bush cut taxes the second time because the economy was in recession.
And even after the “jobs killing” Obama-care and the repeal of the Bush marginal tax rate cut for “the job creators” the economy has created more than twice the jobs under 7 years of Obama than 8 years of Bush.
Bush cut taxes the second time because the economy was in recession.
And even after the “jobs killing” Obama-care and the repeal of the Bush marginal tax rate cut for “the job creators” the economy has created more than twice the jobs under 7 years of Obama than 8 years of Bush.
35
As Karl Rove disdainfully noted, Democrats are part of the "reality-based community." Republicans, he boasted, are not. "That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Unfortunately, reality has a nasty habit of biting us where it hurts when we ignore it.
Unfortunately, reality has a nasty habit of biting us where it hurts when we ignore it.
23
The GOP hermetically sealed bubble. Can I TM that?
13
I think Paul Krugman, supposedly a master of macro-economics, has missed the forest because of the trees.
The larger, more far-reaching observations I'd like to hear him expound upon is this:
1. 1st American Republic.....1788-1860......~70 years, as described by Mr. Elliot....the new nation, founded by principled landed gentry, promoting the expansion of agri-business.
2. 2nd American Republic....1860-1930.....~70 years, just as described by Mr. Elliot.......a more modern republic rising from the ashes of the 1st, after Civil War, promoting industrial development, RRs, steel, mining, etc......through the bureaucracy of a strengthened federal government.
3. 3rd American Republic.....1930-2001...again ~70 years as Mr. Elliot predicted........creation of a unchallenged federal bureaucratic system, central banks, projection of world wide power, promotion of a giant middle class earning incomes which are taxed to support Public works.
.....
Through the entire history of three unique republics, the Democrat PArty has reigned supreme.....reinforcing a "status quo" that is constantly changing shape. The Republican Party only exists to moderate the potential excesses of a possible One Party System. A stable platform has two columns of support. Two opposite wings of a soaring eagle....or.....possibly more accurately.....two opposite cheeks of the same ugly butt.
The larger, more far-reaching observations I'd like to hear him expound upon is this:
1. 1st American Republic.....1788-1860......~70 years, as described by Mr. Elliot....the new nation, founded by principled landed gentry, promoting the expansion of agri-business.
2. 2nd American Republic....1860-1930.....~70 years, just as described by Mr. Elliot.......a more modern republic rising from the ashes of the 1st, after Civil War, promoting industrial development, RRs, steel, mining, etc......through the bureaucracy of a strengthened federal government.
3. 3rd American Republic.....1930-2001...again ~70 years as Mr. Elliot predicted........creation of a unchallenged federal bureaucratic system, central banks, projection of world wide power, promotion of a giant middle class earning incomes which are taxed to support Public works.
.....
Through the entire history of three unique republics, the Democrat PArty has reigned supreme.....reinforcing a "status quo" that is constantly changing shape. The Republican Party only exists to moderate the potential excesses of a possible One Party System. A stable platform has two columns of support. Two opposite wings of a soaring eagle....or.....possibly more accurately.....two opposite cheeks of the same ugly butt.
6
Not just a growth gap, a TRUTH gap.
26
The reason is obvious: God is a Democrat.
17
That is how a "con" works. Promise the mark he will become rich beyond his wildest dreams tomorrow if he will just give you all his money today.
27
it has been amazing to watch the economic progress since the Great Recession when considering the massive "NO" mentality of the GOP... what would have happened if they all had worked together to make life better for all Americans ???
27
The final paragraph says it all. Cons deal that card from the bottom of the deck.
5
While the disparity is a bit of a mystery, Blinder and Watson close with some thoughts:
"It seems we must look instead to several variables that are mostly “good luck,” with perhaps a touch of “good policy.” Specifically, Democratic presidents have experienced, on average, better oil shocks than Republicans (some of which may have been induced by foreign policy), a better legacy of productivity shocks, more favorable international conditions, and perhaps more
optimistic consumer expectations (as measured by the Michigan ICE).
These factors together explain slightly more than half of the 1.80 percentage point D-R growth gap. The rest remains, for now, a mystery of the still mostly-unexplored continent. Theword “research,” taken literally, means search again. We invite other researchers to do so."
At this point the disparity is perhaps reduced to less that 0.9%. While the paper is very interesting, I wonder if 0.9% is either statistically or politically significant.
"It seems we must look instead to several variables that are mostly “good luck,” with perhaps a touch of “good policy.” Specifically, Democratic presidents have experienced, on average, better oil shocks than Republicans (some of which may have been induced by foreign policy), a better legacy of productivity shocks, more favorable international conditions, and perhaps more
optimistic consumer expectations (as measured by the Michigan ICE).
These factors together explain slightly more than half of the 1.80 percentage point D-R growth gap. The rest remains, for now, a mystery of the still mostly-unexplored continent. Theword “research,” taken literally, means search again. We invite other researchers to do so."
At this point the disparity is perhaps reduced to less that 0.9%. While the paper is very interesting, I wonder if 0.9% is either statistically or politically significant.
In my view, both parties fail. Since 1996, GDP has tripled - from $5.5T to $18T. while median family rose from $33K to $49K (+50% approx). If median family income had 'grown with the country', median family income would be in the $100K range. Whose hand is really in our pockets?
6
In wars between truth and lie, Americans have an unfortunate history of falling for hucksters and charlatans.
8
This is hardly new or a finding restricted to economists. See the excellent 2008 book Unequal Democracy by political scientist Larry Bartels.
4
"... why are Republicans so much more inclined than Democrats to boast about their ability to deliver growth?"
Because they are so amoral they find lying much, much easier to do.
Because they are so amoral they find lying much, much easier to do.
17
The capacity of a significant portion of the population to filter out the facts and then vote blindly against their own interests is mind-boggling. Is it a religious type of loyalty to a belief system that is nourished by propaganda from "trusted" sources? Is this the same phenomenon that allows seemingly intelligent people to accept the Trumps, Carsons and Fiorinas, and others as credible candidates? Whatever be the case, we need more journalists like Paul Krugman to be shouting the economic facts from the mountain tops in the optimistic hope that the truth can prevail at least some of the time.
14
Republican Candidates claims must be true, the Propaganda Channel assures their base (repeatedly) that that is so.
And anyone claiming otherwise is merely parroting "Leftist Talking Points".
The overwhelming lies the Right Wing Propaganda Machine propagate must somehow be discredited and countered. You would think the Financial Meltdown would have accomplished this. Grim times ahead for the average citizen of our once great country.
And anyone claiming otherwise is merely parroting "Leftist Talking Points".
The overwhelming lies the Right Wing Propaganda Machine propagate must somehow be discredited and countered. You would think the Financial Meltdown would have accomplished this. Grim times ahead for the average citizen of our once great country.
8
Dear Mr. Krugman,
Why start with 1947? Why not go back to our nation's founding and look at all the economic recessions/depressions that occurred, what caused them and how long it took the nation to recover? The short answer is your premise would be seriously challenged. Just stop with the false premise that basically one political party is better equipped to manage our economy. Because no matter what the title of your op-ed is, your conclusion is always that Republicans are idiots and only the Democrats can save us.
Why start with 1947? Why not go back to our nation's founding and look at all the economic recessions/depressions that occurred, what caused them and how long it took the nation to recover? The short answer is your premise would be seriously challenged. Just stop with the false premise that basically one political party is better equipped to manage our economy. Because no matter what the title of your op-ed is, your conclusion is always that Republicans are idiots and only the Democrats can save us.
1
In actual practice, is there a discernible difference between the activities of the Democrat politicians and the activities of the Republican politicians?
With Obama, we've gotten ACA, TPP, and more war. And don't forget letting war criminals walk. "We have to look forward; not back."
What would the Republicans have done differently?
I agree that Democrat ideals are preferable policy. Unfortunately, in today's world, we're never going to see these charlatans give anything more than lip service to them. And those who do will be marginalized by the bought and paid for news media, which is little more than propaganda.
For example, take the case of Bernie Sanders. Here's a guy who talks the talk, and walks the walk, but he can't get an even break from the media. Not that we should feel sorry for him. He is exactly what he is. He doesn't want anyone to feel sorry for him. He wants the people to feel sorry for themselves. He's fighting their fight, just as he has from Day 1, and they're the ones who aren't getting an even break. And they won't even open their eyes.
Look at how income has stratified over the past fifty years. Does any thinking person believe that this is an accident?
And Hillary as the savior? Give me a break. That will be just more of the same. A mask, and a knife at the ready to stab the common man as soon as he turns his back.
With Obama, we've gotten ACA, TPP, and more war. And don't forget letting war criminals walk. "We have to look forward; not back."
What would the Republicans have done differently?
I agree that Democrat ideals are preferable policy. Unfortunately, in today's world, we're never going to see these charlatans give anything more than lip service to them. And those who do will be marginalized by the bought and paid for news media, which is little more than propaganda.
For example, take the case of Bernie Sanders. Here's a guy who talks the talk, and walks the walk, but he can't get an even break from the media. Not that we should feel sorry for him. He is exactly what he is. He doesn't want anyone to feel sorry for him. He wants the people to feel sorry for themselves. He's fighting their fight, just as he has from Day 1, and they're the ones who aren't getting an even break. And they won't even open their eyes.
Look at how income has stratified over the past fifty years. Does any thinking person believe that this is an accident?
And Hillary as the savior? Give me a break. That will be just more of the same. A mask, and a knife at the ready to stab the common man as soon as he turns his back.
8
Fiorina destroyed HP.
That's all I need to know about her skills as a leader.
That's all I need to know about her skills as a leader.
15
It is hard to have growth when you spend trillions on worthless war.s(a gift from the neo cons) and cut taxes the same time, mostly for the wealthy . That the country seems blind to this is a credit to the fallacious GOP. They continue to get the public to vote against it's own interest.
13
Paul I totally disagree with when you say:# Democrats seem, on average, to have had better luck than Republicans on oil prices."
That lower oil price is a consequence of policies favored by Democrats.
If President Obama had threatened or bomb Iran instead of negotiating as he did , oil price would be going up instead of down.
Had President Obama decided to arm Ukraine and increase tensions with Russia, oil price would be going up not down.
Second, President Obama by pushing policies favorable to renewable energies, indirectly put pressure on oil prices.
This is not luck as you suggested. Oil companies know that. Reason why they usually support Republican candidates.
That lower oil price is a consequence of policies favored by Democrats.
If President Obama had threatened or bomb Iran instead of negotiating as he did , oil price would be going up instead of down.
Had President Obama decided to arm Ukraine and increase tensions with Russia, oil price would be going up not down.
Second, President Obama by pushing policies favorable to renewable energies, indirectly put pressure on oil prices.
This is not luck as you suggested. Oil companies know that. Reason why they usually support Republican candidates.
15
Republican policy:
1) Cut taxes.
2) Complain about the resulting deficit.
1) Cut taxes.
2) Complain about the resulting deficit.
22
The GOP just follows the Jude Winniski play book. Cut taxes and when you run up huge defecits because you haven't taken in enough revenue to run the country scream about how programs for people have to be cut or privatized.
St Reagan cut the TOP marginal tax rates from 70% to 50% and then to 28% (significantly reducing the capital gains rate as well) while almost doubling the FICA tax. So let's see, give wealthier people tax benefits and squeeze working people for a lot more. That's wealth redistribution. Result: the top few percent own 90% of the wealth. But one question, what happens when that top few percent get that remaining 10%? See also endgame of the board game Monopoly
St Reagan cut the TOP marginal tax rates from 70% to 50% and then to 28% (significantly reducing the capital gains rate as well) while almost doubling the FICA tax. So let's see, give wealthier people tax benefits and squeeze working people for a lot more. That's wealth redistribution. Result: the top few percent own 90% of the wealth. But one question, what happens when that top few percent get that remaining 10%? See also endgame of the board game Monopoly
7
Paul Krugman I think you know why the economy does better under Democrats. I think you have alluded the cause in many of you op eds.
I believe the answer is simple. Democrats create jobs by putting money into various type types of infrastructure improvements. This money comes from more fairly taxing the rich and the investing class. Why should my capital gains be taxed at 15%, instead of the same rate as other income.
Any Government spending gets money into the hand of those who will spend it. Moreover, the income gap between workers and so-called job creators has become ridiculous starting with the Reagan administration.
I believe the answer is simple. Democrats create jobs by putting money into various type types of infrastructure improvements. This money comes from more fairly taxing the rich and the investing class. Why should my capital gains be taxed at 15%, instead of the same rate as other income.
Any Government spending gets money into the hand of those who will spend it. Moreover, the income gap between workers and so-called job creators has become ridiculous starting with the Reagan administration.
7
Real debt levels by president, for the fiscal year budgets they proposed and passed:
Carter- GDP grew 2.6% annually and debt fell from 32.9% to 30.6% GDP (Debt FELL 2.3 points)
Reagan- GDP grew 3.6% annually and debt rose from 30.6% to 50.0% GDP (Debt rose 19.4 points)
GHW Bush- GDP grew 1.9% annually and debt rose from 50% to 63.9% GDP (Debt rose 13.9 points)
Clinton- GDP grew 3.6% annually and debt fell from 63.9% to 54.6% GDP (Debt FELL 9.3 points)
GW Bush- GDP grew 1.6% annually and debt rose from 54.6 to 82.8% GDP (Debt rose 28.2 points)
Obama- GDP grew 2.0% annually and debt rose from 82.8 to 101.3% GDP (Debt rose 18.5 points)
The debt has increased from 32.9% to 101.3% GDP, a total increase of 68.4 points.
Democrats added a net 6.9 points, and the Republicans added 61.5 points.
So 90% of the federal debt added resulted from Republican budgets.
And how much additional growth did we get for this extra money borrowed? None.
Average GDP growth under the Republicans was 2.5% annually, ... and under the Democrats was 2.8% annually. Why?
Democrats use (Keynesian) economic theory instead of a fake economic theory (supply side economics).
And when Republicans aren't borrowing for poorly timed tax cuts for rich individuals/corporations, they borrow for unnecessary wars or nuclear missile programs (based on lies about WMDs or the Soviet Union's nuclear superiority). During downturns, Rs block govt. spending. Result: less growth with more debt under Republicans.
Carter- GDP grew 2.6% annually and debt fell from 32.9% to 30.6% GDP (Debt FELL 2.3 points)
Reagan- GDP grew 3.6% annually and debt rose from 30.6% to 50.0% GDP (Debt rose 19.4 points)
GHW Bush- GDP grew 1.9% annually and debt rose from 50% to 63.9% GDP (Debt rose 13.9 points)
Clinton- GDP grew 3.6% annually and debt fell from 63.9% to 54.6% GDP (Debt FELL 9.3 points)
GW Bush- GDP grew 1.6% annually and debt rose from 54.6 to 82.8% GDP (Debt rose 28.2 points)
Obama- GDP grew 2.0% annually and debt rose from 82.8 to 101.3% GDP (Debt rose 18.5 points)
The debt has increased from 32.9% to 101.3% GDP, a total increase of 68.4 points.
Democrats added a net 6.9 points, and the Republicans added 61.5 points.
So 90% of the federal debt added resulted from Republican budgets.
And how much additional growth did we get for this extra money borrowed? None.
Average GDP growth under the Republicans was 2.5% annually, ... and under the Democrats was 2.8% annually. Why?
Democrats use (Keynesian) economic theory instead of a fake economic theory (supply side economics).
And when Republicans aren't borrowing for poorly timed tax cuts for rich individuals/corporations, they borrow for unnecessary wars or nuclear missile programs (based on lies about WMDs or the Soviet Union's nuclear superiority). During downturns, Rs block govt. spending. Result: less growth with more debt under Republicans.
12
How does the data look if you build in a 1-year lag?
That is, the first year of any president's first term really belongs to the previous president given that the spending plans, tax rates, etc. were all set during the previous guy's term.
The new president doesn't really get to affect policy until his second year in office.
That is, the first year of any president's first term really belongs to the previous president given that the spending plans, tax rates, etc. were all set during the previous guy's term.
The new president doesn't really get to affect policy until his second year in office.
5
More on the so-called Reagan achievement: A post on another NYT editorial looked at whitehouse.gov data on revenue increases after his 1980 tax cuts to the 1988 at the end of his term and asked derisively for "liberals" to explain. He ignored the Reagan tax increases in 1984 as well as the massive SS tax increases which were designed to "save the program for future generations". A closer look at that data shows that before 1980, annual revenues were about 10% of GDP. After his tax cuts this percentage dropped to less than 9% for 3 years before returning to about 10% after the tax changes and that a majority of the revenue increase came from SS taxes. This suggests that the "tax cuts" were really tax shifts to the working class. GWB repeated that phenomena (without the correcting tax increases of course) in 2000. So much for the tax cut creating growth fairy tale.
7
on the + side...Government GOOD
Under Lincoln, the trans-continental Railroad, the end of Slavery
The Panama Canal
The TVA and Hover dam
Social Security
40 hour work week
WW2 victory
Medicare
Civil Rights enforcement
Man on the Moon
The CDC
on the - side...Government BAD
Japanese American internment
the Vietnam war
Abu Ghraib prison
some may see som of the above GOOD as BAD (this is the issue)?
Under Lincoln, the trans-continental Railroad, the end of Slavery
The Panama Canal
The TVA and Hover dam
Social Security
40 hour work week
WW2 victory
Medicare
Civil Rights enforcement
Man on the Moon
The CDC
on the - side...Government BAD
Japanese American internment
the Vietnam war
Abu Ghraib prison
some may see som of the above GOOD as BAD (this is the issue)?
3
The Big Dog, Bill Clinton at the 2012 Democrat National Convention laid out the economic history of the GOP vs. the Democrats brilliantly and staked out the middle ground for President Obama leaving only the fringe Right for Romney. It's worth going back and watching.
8
Back to Frankel's book about lying. If the only stories you tell are just that, stories, and not founded in truth, then you come to a point where you really can't tell the difference. When a Democrat tells you that they might raise taxes, we deride him or her. But, when a Republican tells you they won't, they either are lying, or they are planning to run wars and policies off the books and leave it to the Dems to clean up (and then pay for the privilege).
8
GOP strategy follows the Jude Winniski play book. Cut taxes and when you run a huge defecit because you're not collecting enough revenue to run the country scream about programs for people needing to be cut or privatized.
St. Reagan lowered the TOP marginal tax rate from 70% to 50% and then from 50% to 28% while significantly increasing the FICA tax. Not to mention drastically lowering the capital gains vtaxet's see, lower taxes on
St. Reagan lowered the TOP marginal tax rate from 70% to 50% and then from 50% to 28% while significantly increasing the FICA tax. Not to mention drastically lowering the capital gains vtaxet's see, lower taxes on
6
This is not news to me and many people, i.e., our country does better under Democratic presidents. I am glad someone is pointing it out (again). Anyway...I find charts that show the economy/jobs/etc under Dem versus Repub to be quite telling, and I think that the Dems should use these charts whenever they can to show the difference. Saying something, and actually showing it, are two different things. Maybe the Dem candidates can put out t-shirts with a chart on them, or something to that effect.
9
Evaluating the results of policy is a worthy pursuit (and I appreciate Mr. Krugman's contributions and wish only that his voice was not so rare). Another legitimate comparison might be state economies—especially those controlled by Republican governor and legislature vis a vis those by Democrats. Which states contribute more, and which take more, from the Federal till?
The articles comparing percentage of health care insured across every county in the country, published last week in the NYT, were illuminating. They paint a damning portrait of Republican health care policies, assuming the metric is access to health care. Republicans argue to each other that their metric is self-sufficiency, i.e. no public support for the populace. As in their justifications of their financial policies, their arguments condemning ACA are deceitful.
The articles comparing percentage of health care insured across every county in the country, published last week in the NYT, were illuminating. They paint a damning portrait of Republican health care policies, assuming the metric is access to health care. Republicans argue to each other that their metric is self-sufficiency, i.e. no public support for the populace. As in their justifications of their financial policies, their arguments condemning ACA are deceitful.
14
The Party of "fiscal sense" is another lie perpetrated by the GOP.
Our debt is driven by two wars, huge tax cuts for the rich, and Medicare Part D, all brought to us, unpaid for, by the GOP.
Our debt is driven by two wars, huge tax cuts for the rich, and Medicare Part D, all brought to us, unpaid for, by the GOP.
15
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" Isaac Asimov
7
Cutting social welfare programs, including social security and Medicare, IS the main goal of Republicans and the economy is just their cover to enact these.
9
Well first, I must point-out how biased FOX, the first RNC Debate sponsor, and CNBC, which is generally (if you have watched it much) a kiss-up to its constituent viewers--Wall Street and the Uber-Wealthy AREN'T!. Joe Kiernan? Hardly a Liberal! Shear nonsense!
The Dynamic Scoring that the GOP Candidates espouse is nothing more than the old shell game, where the Wizard keeps his proof conveniently hidden behind his green curtain in the Emerald City, in Oz. Oh, facts? Still workin' on 'em!
Perhaps that's why Prima Donald has the nerve to just say, "…when I'm President…and just "trust me!" Additionally, this all sounds astoundingly similar to President Richard Nixon's "Secret Plan to end the War in Vietnam", in 1972. How'd that work out, huh?
Then Candidate George H.W. Bush said it best, when he faced-off with then Candidate Ronald Reagan, as Ronnie asserted "trickle-down" (dynamic scoring's forerunner). Bush called it "Voodoo Economics"!
The Dynamic Scoring that the GOP Candidates espouse is nothing more than the old shell game, where the Wizard keeps his proof conveniently hidden behind his green curtain in the Emerald City, in Oz. Oh, facts? Still workin' on 'em!
Perhaps that's why Prima Donald has the nerve to just say, "…when I'm President…and just "trust me!" Additionally, this all sounds astoundingly similar to President Richard Nixon's "Secret Plan to end the War in Vietnam", in 1972. How'd that work out, huh?
Then Candidate George H.W. Bush said it best, when he faced-off with then Candidate Ronald Reagan, as Ronnie asserted "trickle-down" (dynamic scoring's forerunner). Bush called it "Voodoo Economics"!
6
That Democrats do better in the economic health of the nation is no real mystery. They have no problem with the interconnectedness of the public and private sectors in crafting legislation. More importantly, they have a Chief Executive to carry out the laws, policies, and directives that factor in both. Republicans continue to practice as if the public sector is the underclass which requires some form of punishment. Only rewarding the upper classes' private endeavors has never been an overall formula for success: in any nation, at any time in history. Likewise pandering just to the "masses" has had likewise failures.
Truly great leadership recognizes both AS REALITIES to develop balance and harmonies. Putting a man on the the moon was a joint effort from both public(government) and private(contractors). Keeping us in space continued for the next 50 years from start to the end of the shuttle program.
Republicans have demonstrated a callousness towards the little people, something that has proved totally disastrous for civilizations and empires alike.
Truly great leadership recognizes both AS REALITIES to develop balance and harmonies. Putting a man on the the moon was a joint effort from both public(government) and private(contractors). Keeping us in space continued for the next 50 years from start to the end of the shuttle program.
Republicans have demonstrated a callousness towards the little people, something that has proved totally disastrous for civilizations and empires alike.
9
Qustion from the 4th last paragraph of the article. It seems to say that to pay for cuts for billionaires the GOP wants to raid the 2.7 trillion in the SS. The SS trust fund is the savings of the Middle Class. To raid it to pay for tax cuts for the rich would be redistribution of wealth at a grand scale. GOP candidates are saying that because the trust fund is invested in government bonds the money is already stolen and by reducing the payback by 1 to 2 trillion they are really saving it.
My questions: is it credible to say that by investing the SS trust fund in government bonds the money has been stolen and instead the 2.7 trillion should be in stacks of $100 bills in fort Knox? Or rather is the GOP argument that the money has been stolen cover for their attempts at stealing the trust fund of the middle class and redistributing it to the wealthy?
My questions: is it credible to say that by investing the SS trust fund in government bonds the money has been stolen and instead the 2.7 trillion should be in stacks of $100 bills in fort Knox? Or rather is the GOP argument that the money has been stolen cover for their attempts at stealing the trust fund of the middle class and redistributing it to the wealthy?
6
As Bill Clinton said in his 2011 Democratic Convention speech, "It's arithmetic".
And the Republican economic proposals still don't add up.
And the Republican economic proposals still don't add up.
6
Because the economy does so well under Democrats, abortions fall dramatically, especially under President Clinton.
If you are really opposed to abortions, vote for the Democrat.
If you are really opposed to abortions, vote for the Democrat.
7
I can remember wondering why gas prices during the Clinton years stayed around $1 per gallon for the entire eight years, then rose dramatically under Bush. At the time I theorized that the higher gas prices had to do with the Bush's chummy relationship with the Saudis. Republicans blamed Obama and screamed INFLATION when prices dipped then rose back up to roughly where it had been at the height of the Bush years. But now, Obama's presidency will be remembered (like Clinton's) as a time when gas prices were unusually low! The experts say this is just coincidence. Nevertheless the facts are that gas prices are historically lower under Democrats.
4
The Democrats quit fighting 40 years ago. The valiant days and deeds of FDR and "Give 'em hell" HarryTruman are but a tale to be told. Instead, we got Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama--all politically correct and timid, but more than willing to shake hands with the devil and then brag they got the best deal they could.
2
The question of who does better can't be evaluated by a timeline like was done by Dr. Binder. For example, Clinton left office in a recession, even though you say he had a great record, leaving it up to Bush to try to get out of the recession. Same for Obama, same for Reagan. Try looking to see who did best a year or two after their policies are put in place. Come on Dr. Krugman, you know this, why do you have to be so disingenuous? I thought you may rather write about the failure of the insurance policies in this country and raising deductibles. Of course, if a Republican wins in 2016 you can just blame him for the failure of Obamacare. Typical of you.
Democrats pursue governmental policies aimed at spreading wealth across a wide swath of the American fabric. Republicans always want to feed the birds by feeding the horses.
5
Thank you, Paul for another unerring, perceptive skewering of the GOP mindset and strategy. I wish I'd had you informing me back when I voted for Nixon, Ford, Reagan (twice) and Bush 41 (3x).
I used to be proud I'd voted for every winning President since 1972 up until the shrub came along. Now I am filled with shame having been one of the great unwashed, ill-informed sheep.
I credit the internet and the vast sea of information and opinion available to me now. I used to Read The Chicago Tribune and think myself on top of things - but like many working stiffs had little else to go on and no way of knowing I was consistently and maliciously being lied to.
Today, it's a full-time job keeping up with the world, and I'm thankful I'm retired and can devote the time necessary to wading through the thicket of propaganda blasted at me daily. But how many people have the time to winnow wheat from chaff? Damn few. And there lies the whole problem.
Ignorance can be cured - but new ignorance is always being relentlessly born into the world, and our citizens are simply not equipped with the critical thinking skills (wisdom) that sometimes comes with age.
I used to be proud I'd voted for every winning President since 1972 up until the shrub came along. Now I am filled with shame having been one of the great unwashed, ill-informed sheep.
I credit the internet and the vast sea of information and opinion available to me now. I used to Read The Chicago Tribune and think myself on top of things - but like many working stiffs had little else to go on and no way of knowing I was consistently and maliciously being lied to.
Today, it's a full-time job keeping up with the world, and I'm thankful I'm retired and can devote the time necessary to wading through the thicket of propaganda blasted at me daily. But how many people have the time to winnow wheat from chaff? Damn few. And there lies the whole problem.
Ignorance can be cured - but new ignorance is always being relentlessly born into the world, and our citizens are simply not equipped with the critical thinking skills (wisdom) that sometimes comes with age.
105
Just to call you out Paul. This is not a gotcha question. What is the agreement among economists on the length of a macro economic cycle. And typically how much time does it take for a policy to affect the macro economic climate. I guess you know the answer, but hey this is not opinion column and we all know what the job of an opinion writer here I.
If anybody wants to see what the results of a conservative agenda would deliver, just look at Kansas.
Not the direction I would want the country to go in.
Not the direction I would want the country to go in.
5
Republicans once talked by frames to capture Democrats into their thinking frame.
Ms Clinton grasped the method and framed that “U.S. economy does better under Democrat”.
Ms Fiorina, telling the opposite was caught into the Ms Clinton's frame, involuntarily confirming it.
Ms Fiorina's answer “needs someone in the White House who actually knows how the economy works” was a pure slogan but didn't reverse the Ms Clinton's frame.
This is a fundamental change in the Democrats talking and thinking by frames, so using the same capturing methods mastered by Republicans for 30 years, which now talk by slogans, which, if repeated over and over, also have an extraordinary convincing power, as the George W. Bush's lies.
So also Democrats have to create also slogans, out of their thinking frames, to spread with all media over and over to let the messages enter into the people's brain, if they want to win.
Ms Clinton grasped the method and framed that “U.S. economy does better under Democrat”.
Ms Fiorina, telling the opposite was caught into the Ms Clinton's frame, involuntarily confirming it.
Ms Fiorina's answer “needs someone in the White House who actually knows how the economy works” was a pure slogan but didn't reverse the Ms Clinton's frame.
This is a fundamental change in the Democrats talking and thinking by frames, so using the same capturing methods mastered by Republicans for 30 years, which now talk by slogans, which, if repeated over and over, also have an extraordinary convincing power, as the George W. Bush's lies.
So also Democrats have to create also slogans, out of their thinking frames, to spread with all media over and over to let the messages enter into the people's brain, if they want to win.
1
To gain and maintain dictator's positions (and the GOP does like to dictate(, the masses must remain uneducated, poor and fearful. Look at any GOP ad or speech, and one will find that all three of these criteria are met.
Dems, on the other hand, consistently promote programs and policies that benefit the masses....and it should be noted that the wealth of the financially elite IS dependent upon financial growth of the masses. An army consisting of only generals will fail.....the ground troops have to succeed as well.
The trouble with the GOP is that they all want to be generals, and don't have a plan to support the troops!
Dems, on the other hand, consistently promote programs and policies that benefit the masses....and it should be noted that the wealth of the financially elite IS dependent upon financial growth of the masses. An army consisting of only generals will fail.....the ground troops have to succeed as well.
The trouble with the GOP is that they all want to be generals, and don't have a plan to support the troops!
3
The biggest problem that the Republicans face is reality. They're working hard to make that a non-issue.
Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to.
Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to.
At this point in the game, the GOP hopefuls are not running for president; they're running for big donations from big donors. It's too early for small donors to be contributing in sufficient quantities to add up to much, but the really big money's check-writing -- the race to own a winning politician -- has begun. What that big money wants to hear more than anything is "lower taxes." So that's what any half-way smart candidate (and "half-way smart" describes pretty much the whole Republican field) is going to talk about lowering taxes on the big money.
1
I also agree Prof. Krugman.
Indeed we need someone who knows how the economy works, and how to manage a loaded-down, red tape entwined, heavily lobbied government bureaucracy works to get things, anything, accomplished.
Hillary 2016.
DD
Manhattan
Indeed we need someone who knows how the economy works, and how to manage a loaded-down, red tape entwined, heavily lobbied government bureaucracy works to get things, anything, accomplished.
Hillary 2016.
DD
Manhattan
3
Republicans inherit a good economy and mess it up. Democrats inherit a messed up economy and fix it. Thus, when comparing records, Democrats have an unfair advantage: their terms always start from a lower base.
4
Right wingers lie because the truth really hurts.
2
Until Americans do a little research on their own, nothing will change. Most republicans listen to only Fox news and they are so one sided. The other major news channels just read headlines over and over, whatever the 'breaking news' of the day is. In my lifetime the country only does well financially during the years the Democrats hold the white house. thsoe are the facts. Wake up America... we cannot afford another republican president for a couple decades - they cost us too much for unnecessary things like constant war.
2
All major countries are controlled by the banks. Krugman will do anything to push the bankster agenda. The banksters want to keep you enslaved to debt, which is why you are seeing artificially low interest rates and artificially high prices in stock, real estate, and education.
The Federal Reserve (private central bank) is a bunch of financial terrorists.
The Federal Reserve (private central bank) is a bunch of financial terrorists.
Paul-
A very even-handed piece this morning. Facts, sans your previously typical bludgeoning of the GOP. I like your new approach.
A very even-handed piece this morning. Facts, sans your previously typical bludgeoning of the GOP. I like your new approach.
1
The media is the new punching bag for the Republicans, who are crying foul because they have been caught red-handed with their hands in the honey pot of lies. Must say this much about Carly Fiorna. She has a thick, thick skin. That she has the audacity to question Hillary Clinton about her statement that the economy does better under the Democrats is simply unbelievable considering her involvement in the Lucent and Hewlett Packard economics was so disastrous for the two Corporations that she was FIRED. She almost destroyed, let alone manage two Corporations. Some nerve!!! Fact check, Carly Fiorna!
3
As usual, I agree with Dr. Krugman--
...One additional reason for better economic performance under the Democrats might be that they seem to be willing consider all classes [social and economic] of people—rather than just the business class—in their deliberations and planning, as well as in their pre-election politicking...
...One additional reason for better economic performance under the Democrats might be that they seem to be willing consider all classes [social and economic] of people—rather than just the business class—in their deliberations and planning, as well as in their pre-election politicking...
2
Could it be because Democrats get elected when things are really bad for the mass of wage earners, and the only place for the economy to go is up?
I'm surprised that Krugman did not mention market performance. It is my understanding that the market does substantially better when Democrats are in the White House.
2
Stand your ground(less): GOP shoots first, fact checks later. Again.
1
Mr. Krugman is right again, and brings facts to the table to reassert his opinions. However, it's worth mentioning that Watson and Blinder updated their paper on economic performance for 2015. The data are now even more statistically significant.<br/><br/>See <a href="http://www.princeton.edu/~mwatson/papers/DemRep_BlinderWatson_July2015.pdf" title="http://www.princeton.edu/~mwatson/papers/DemRep_BlinderWatson_July2015.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.princeton.edu/~mwatson/papers/DemRep_BlinderWatson_July2015.p...
1
Thanks, PK, you get it right, and your analysis is supported by congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein:“Today's Republican Party...is an insurgent outlier... unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science..." (Its Even Worse Than It Looks).
2
Congress has already begun to cut SS behind the closed doors of the "Budget Deal." Section 831 in the deal clearly cuts SS for the millions of Americans who use Spousal Benefits as income for retirement. It's few heartless sentences also affects widows, their children & the disabled very soon...in 6 mos. some benefits will be unsummarily cut off. Even the White House says it doesn't matter because it's a loophole for rich people; what a disappointment, nothing could be further from the truth.
Republicans are so in love with Trickle Down/Supply Side. Next time one of your Republican friends brings up either of those phrases, or "Job Creators", rub their nose in the noble experiment called "Brownbackistan", the place where Republicans rule the roost and where they think if they just keep cutting they will reach Nirvana. Also mention that President Obama's approval rating is higher than that of Gov. Brownback.
1
Why is the Democratic economic record so much better? Tangential technology paradigm shift and priming the pump, AKA, luck. President Bill Clinton rode the dot com bubble hard and put it to bed wet, sorry about that, couldn't help myself. The Fed had Obama's back with the ZIRP and QE. The the Repubs have what? Their precious voodoo trickle down, and I guess advertising does work, because some people still buy that noxious swill.
Prof. Krugman,
I used to enjoy your columns and your opinions are generally spot on.
However, pretty much every column you write these days has a question-wait structure. I'm not sure if this rhetorical device has a name, but it works by stating a challenge question and then asking the audience to wait for the answer by the end of the column while the writer reviews some pertinent facts.
In this column it goes:
"Before I get to those questions, let’s talk about the facts."
It makes your columns unreadable. I tune out after the first few words in that sentence.
Please consider a different way to structure your material.
I used to enjoy your columns and your opinions are generally spot on.
However, pretty much every column you write these days has a question-wait structure. I'm not sure if this rhetorical device has a name, but it works by stating a challenge question and then asking the audience to wait for the answer by the end of the column while the writer reviews some pertinent facts.
In this column it goes:
"Before I get to those questions, let’s talk about the facts."
It makes your columns unreadable. I tune out after the first few words in that sentence.
Please consider a different way to structure your material.
I've often wondered what is the real purpose of these tax cuts. Is there anyone who actually still believes it can work, or this a cynical strategy to allow Republicans to dismantle programs they don't like while dodging the criticism that normally comes with trying to do so?
1
The reality is that for the GOP base belief trumps facts, and facts won't changes those beliefs, it's all a matter of blind faith. The world is just "supposed to be" that way, and if you question them you're basically a heretic if not just plain crazy.
Krugman: "Republicans must sell an essentially unpopular agenda by confidently declaring that they have the ultimate recipe for prosperity — and hope that nobody points out their historically poor track record."
Thanks, PK, for helping us with the needed "fact-cheching." As your colleague Tom Friedman at the NY Times once noted, we have a serious impediment to thinking intelligently without the fact-checking: “When widely followed public figures feel free to say anything, without any fact-checking, it becomes impossible for a democracy to think intelligently about big issues.”
Thanks, PK, for helping us with the needed "fact-cheching." As your colleague Tom Friedman at the NY Times once noted, we have a serious impediment to thinking intelligently without the fact-checking: “When widely followed public figures feel free to say anything, without any fact-checking, it becomes impossible for a democracy to think intelligently about big issues.”
1
You're right, today's conservatives live in a bubble, and that bubble is Fox News.
It's not hard to see that with a very small sample size (Presidents since 1947) any statistical fluctuation is likely accidental.
Really, Paul Krugman, please don't confuse the average GOP voter with facts!
1
The economy does better under Democratic presidents because when there's a Democrat in the White House the Republicans spend billions on media blitzes, websites, trumped up conspiracies, and witch-hunts which in turns primes the economic pump in all other sectors!
1
Enough with Reagan idolatry already! Dwight Eisenhower was our last true conservative president. His presidency focused on infrastructure investment (the interstate highway system, NASA), reigning in the growth of the military-industrial complex, and fiscal prudence (he refused to cut taxes or increase military spending).
I'd think a true conservative would seek to avoid the cost of stupid wars -- like Vietnam $1 Trillion, 58,220 American war dead; Iraq/Afghanistan $3 Trillion, 7,866 American war dead.
I'd think a true conservative would seek to avoid the cost of stupid wars -- like Vietnam $1 Trillion, 58,220 American war dead; Iraq/Afghanistan $3 Trillion, 7,866 American war dead.
5
For all the paranoia that the GOP candidates try to induce about taxation as theft, they brazenly overlook the record of Patron Saint Reagan, who raised taxes 7 years of his presidency.
The explanation is partly psychological I think...with a Republican in the White House the average American is afraid for his/her family's future, worries a lot, and hunkers down economically and otherwise. Like squirrels preparing for winter.
It is quite clear that red states do far better financially and with generally lower taxes than blue states. There has been a big exodus out of my state, California, of people with moderate wealth who want to keep it. Other states such as New York, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and others have experienced the same thing. What about that, Mr. Krugman?
1
The Republicans are right about liberal bias. Liberals are biased against the greed, ignorance and stupidity that now characterizes the Republican Party.
2
Clearly Carly Fiorina doesn't know the abscissa from the ordinate and was looking at the chart upside down and sideways W.
1
Funny, Prof. Krugman doesn't mention the biggest tax cutter of the ear, John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
Yeah for Krugman! The big lie works because most understand that most of the time, the big lie is too outrageous. Except when it is not. But there is a way around it by taking a Chinese idea and applying it to the issue of how people remain ignorant concerning the world around them. Water is more powerful than volcanoes, and what is need to address our ignorance, is the steady drip drip drip of writings like Krugmans. So: Yeah for Krugman!
1
The unchallenged GOP's myth resembles another unchallenged myth, that religion is good because it good, whatever the consequences.
2
What was Paul Krugmans economic record when he was economic advisor? And how does compare do other economists?
America you are a growing embarrassment and disappointment to the free world. I hope for the free world's sake you soon realize your true enemies and start fighting back.
To me, the answer to the Republicans outright lying is really very simple; just like George Bush, when promising the virtues of tax cuts, the candidates are appealing to two groups to get elected; voters and campaign doners. The Republicans are merely buying votes and the financing to gain them. I really think it is that simple. The Republican candidates always know that their followers will always believe them because, just like you wrote, they live in a bubble.
Professional Wrestling and Professional Politics have a good deal in common. Lies & Fools and someone raking in a ton of money.
The underlying reality is that presidents get a lot more credit and blame than they deserve for economic conditions.
The historical cycle of Americans voting for Republican economic policies despite the repeated failure of those policies to deliver on their promises has always reminded me of an old Three Stooges sketch.
The scene finds Curly slamming his head into a wall over and over.
Moe: "Why are you doing that?"
Curly: "Because it feels so good when I stop!"
The scene finds Curly slamming his head into a wall over and over.
Moe: "Why are you doing that?"
Curly: "Because it feels so good when I stop!"
3
Professor Krugman has forgotten the hallowed phenomenon of the Good-Times One-Way Time-Delay Credit. When it is pointed out to Republicans that Democratic administrations always preside over better economic times than Republicans, the Repubs inevitably invoke the Good-Times One-Way Time-Delay Credit, as in: the Clinton administration benefitted from the policies of Poppy Bush's. IOW, the credit for good times is always accrued by the Republican administration that preceded the Democratic. It's called the Good-Times "One-Way" Time-Delay Credit because if you say: "Well then, in that case, Reagan benefitted from the groundwork laid by the Carter Administration..." that is NEVER so, it's always one-way.
2
Since wealthy Republicans cannot count on economic growth to fatten their wallets, they have to rely on targeted tax cuts to make-up the difference. Those big campaign contributions must be paid for somehow!!!!
4
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7573/full/nature15263.html
When the quantum engine sails by NP-Complete, the silly back talk will end.
When the quantum engine sails by NP-Complete, the silly back talk will end.
It's so interesting that I don't see any comments by Republican readers of the Times. Maybe I haven't read down far enough. Usually there are a few who vigorously counter Professor Krugman's arguments with their view that trickle down economics really do work. Interesting that they are silent today.
We have an investor class that would rather go to the casino rather than build something substantial and useful. They don`t seem to realize or care that the hedge funders are upstairs running the show and betting again`st them.
4
The historical record on any issue – economic prosperity, effective social programs, foreign policy successes – is no guarantee of what lies ahead in the near term. The record does suggest, however, some degree of probability that general approaches in the future which follow successful recipes from the past will do better than those methods which usually failed previously.
Regardless of how confident we have a right to be about the predictive value of the historical record, if a politician points to what he or she claims is history, then it should be actual history – not some contrived fiction of convenience. Republicans live in the world of fiction; Democrats do not.
For years, Republicans have tinkered with history, making adjustments to fit a conservative narrative. The most time-tested tinkering involves Ronald Reagan. If there was prosperity in the 1980s, it was because of Reagan’s correctly identifying government as the problem. If the national debt grew too much and too fast during the Reagan administration, it was because Tip O’Neill and the Democrats forced spending on Reagan. Forget the presidential veto power – that doesn’t fit the narrative.
Anyone who is impolite enough to point out Republican distortions of history is simply reflecting liberal bias – or so the story goes.
Regardless of how confident we have a right to be about the predictive value of the historical record, if a politician points to what he or she claims is history, then it should be actual history – not some contrived fiction of convenience. Republicans live in the world of fiction; Democrats do not.
For years, Republicans have tinkered with history, making adjustments to fit a conservative narrative. The most time-tested tinkering involves Ronald Reagan. If there was prosperity in the 1980s, it was because of Reagan’s correctly identifying government as the problem. If the national debt grew too much and too fast during the Reagan administration, it was because Tip O’Neill and the Democrats forced spending on Reagan. Forget the presidential veto power – that doesn’t fit the narrative.
Anyone who is impolite enough to point out Republican distortions of history is simply reflecting liberal bias – or so the story goes.
How about we look at Hong Kong vs. Detroit, 1960 to today?
Interestingly, in Canada our Liberal (similar to Democrat) leader Justin Trudeau made the statement: "the commitment needs to be a commitment to grow the economy and the budget will balance itself"
His claim is that his policies will grow the economy better than his Conservative predecessor Stephen Harper. It sounds very much like the "voodoo economics" that Mr. Krugman regularly criticizes in the Republican party.
Putting aside the odd Canadian law prohibiting foreigners from expressing preferences in a Canadian election, would Mr. Krugman have supported our Conservative government?
His claim is that his policies will grow the economy better than his Conservative predecessor Stephen Harper. It sounds very much like the "voodoo economics" that Mr. Krugman regularly criticizes in the Republican party.
Putting aside the odd Canadian law prohibiting foreigners from expressing preferences in a Canadian election, would Mr. Krugman have supported our Conservative government?
As we find out today, Krugman has been shading the truth related to Obamacare. It turns out that less than half of anticipated new 21 million enrollees have signed up, and 9 million of those are MEDICAID recipients. These MEDICAID recipients did not need the ACA to be covered. The result being that the actual paying new insurance recipients are few and far between and with the deductibles for many being unaffordable. They may have "insurance" but not medical care. OBAMACARE is now on life support and on the way to collapse.
Republicans aren't always wrong:
“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.”
— Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States
"We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
– Dwight D. Eisenhower, 34th President of the United States
“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.”
— Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States
"We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
– Dwight D. Eisenhower, 34th President of the United States
1
I assume from this op-ed that Mr. Krugman is going to endorse Bernie Sanders, right? This is Bernie's issue. Empty words aside, Hillary is captured by the 1%, has always and will always protect their interests.
I don't know that it is so hard to understand. Republicans focus explicitly on property rights and shareholders. For them, the economy really does do better when CEOs make huge salaries with big pay raises and bonuses every year. If you aren't a big time owner, then you just don't count, no matter how hard you work or what type of skill set you have. You are effectively invisible to them.
1
Possibly, the economy expands and contracts in spite of and without regard to presidents.
Republicans don't just promise miracles when talking about their tax cuts, they also talk a very tough, cowboy-like, game on foreign policy. To hear Donald Trump talk, ISIS would be blown away within six months of his assuming office.
The reality is quite different, of course. The invasion of Iraq has to rank as the worst American foreign policy decision in history for the country. However, if one considers that the invasion was simply a sop to the military/security/industrial complex, then it was a very good move indeed.
The reality is quite different, of course. The invasion of Iraq has to rank as the worst American foreign policy decision in history for the country. However, if one considers that the invasion was simply a sop to the military/security/industrial complex, then it was a very good move indeed.
I wonder if Mr. Krugman has contemplated the fact that Republicans who take over have to follow policy choices of the Democrats while Democrats follows those of Republicans. Do all incentives and results appear instantaneously with policy changes? Or, does it take time for the economy to react to new incentives by new policies?
Might I suggest that people are just a bit more optimistic when Democrats are in charge?
I have absolutely no basis for this other than feeling complete despair constantly reinforced under Republican leadership.
I have absolutely no basis for this other than feeling complete despair constantly reinforced under Republican leadership.
We need more journalists like Dr. Krugman who seems to be one of the few willing to call out the smoke and mirrors behind Republican policy, and do so intelligently and from of base of irrefutable fact and figure. His voice is all the more important when so many of his colleagues would rather snark about the Emailghazi nonscandal and swoon over Marco Rubio, nevermind that his voodoo economic plan to rob the middle class and pay the very rich and very poor would be a disaster for American families.
1
"Mean Girl" Carly and "Never Cool Jr. High Nerd" Ryan are currently the poster children for Republican economics and behind them is a massive propaganda machine which constantly churns out fact-toids of mis-information.
With a two level information system with Fox as the mouth piece of the Republican one and the non-Fox as the ones for everyone else it is difficult to have a rational, truth telling, settle up accounts on economic claims.
What is the answer??? Could a constant counter call for accountability be the answer? Or how about a series of round tables with a "real" balanced group of commenters??? Last resort, a stream of commercials broadcast by the media along the lines of your excellent article of today???
With a two level information system with Fox as the mouth piece of the Republican one and the non-Fox as the ones for everyone else it is difficult to have a rational, truth telling, settle up accounts on economic claims.
What is the answer??? Could a constant counter call for accountability be the answer? Or how about a series of round tables with a "real" balanced group of commenters??? Last resort, a stream of commercials broadcast by the media along the lines of your excellent article of today???
Dr. Krugman, do you know why they looked at who controlled the Presidency as opposed to which Party controlled Congress?
Love it... Epistemic Closure...
What a wonderfully eloquent way to describe ignorance.
What a wonderfully eloquent way to describe ignorance.
2
To put it simply, Democrats make people feel they actually can achieve (and follow up by making it happen, that is paving the path to achieving through proper regulations and policies) and Republicans, to be kind, No So Much!!!
A peak into the right-wing mind.
From the dreadful prose of libertarian idol Ayn Rand:
“People think that a liar gains a victory over his victim. What I’ve learned is that a lie is an act of self-abdication, because one surrenders one’s reality to the person to whom one lies, making that person one’s master, condemning oneself from then on to faking the sort of reality that person’s view requires to be faked…The man who lies to the world, is the world’s slave from then on…There are no white lies, there is only the blackest of destruction, and a white lie is the blackest of all.”
(Atlas Shrugged)
She's probably lying--it's so hard to tell.
From the dreadful prose of libertarian idol Ayn Rand:
“People think that a liar gains a victory over his victim. What I’ve learned is that a lie is an act of self-abdication, because one surrenders one’s reality to the person to whom one lies, making that person one’s master, condemning oneself from then on to faking the sort of reality that person’s view requires to be faked…The man who lies to the world, is the world’s slave from then on…There are no white lies, there is only the blackest of destruction, and a white lie is the blackest of all.”
(Atlas Shrugged)
She's probably lying--it's so hard to tell.
2
Bless you Dr. Krugman for pointing to an inconvenient (for the GOP) truth. It's not surprising "They can't handle the truth!" - the record does not support their claims on the economy (and a lot of other things.) It's instructive to look at the current crop of GOP contenders.
Dr. Ben Carson and Mannatech. Paul Huckabee and cinnamon based diabetes/cancer cures. Donald Trump and his skill at getting his name on projects financed with other people's money; he lost money running a casino for Pete's sake! Jeb Bush and his endorsement of a dodgy water well drilling scam in Nigeria. (Not to mention the record of his MBA president brother who ran several businesses into the ground, or Neil Bush and Silverado.)
Let's not leave out Scott Walker and the devolution of Wisconsin, or Bobby Jindal blowing a hole in the Louisiana state budget that only looks good compared to the train wreck that is Kansas under Sam Brownback. (Why Brownback hasn't declared a run for the White House is a mystery - he's certainly proven his faith in GOP Voodoo economics.) Curly Fiorina's record speaks for itself. Marco Rubio? Do NOT look at his personal finances. Chris Christie? What ever did happen to that money that was supposed to go into state pension funds? How did Exxon walk away from huge toxic waste bills with a token payment to the state?
When the GOP asks for your vote, hang on to your wallet and vote Democratic.
Dr. Ben Carson and Mannatech. Paul Huckabee and cinnamon based diabetes/cancer cures. Donald Trump and his skill at getting his name on projects financed with other people's money; he lost money running a casino for Pete's sake! Jeb Bush and his endorsement of a dodgy water well drilling scam in Nigeria. (Not to mention the record of his MBA president brother who ran several businesses into the ground, or Neil Bush and Silverado.)
Let's not leave out Scott Walker and the devolution of Wisconsin, or Bobby Jindal blowing a hole in the Louisiana state budget that only looks good compared to the train wreck that is Kansas under Sam Brownback. (Why Brownback hasn't declared a run for the White House is a mystery - he's certainly proven his faith in GOP Voodoo economics.) Curly Fiorina's record speaks for itself. Marco Rubio? Do NOT look at his personal finances. Chris Christie? What ever did happen to that money that was supposed to go into state pension funds? How did Exxon walk away from huge toxic waste bills with a token payment to the state?
When the GOP asks for your vote, hang on to your wallet and vote Democratic.
2
Republicans in the US are just doing what conservatives do everywhere: They lie to get the votes.
1
Let's imagine that the Republican candidates all were required to ingest a magical truth serum before their "debates." Here's what we would hear:
"I want to ensure that you earn the lowest wages possible. No wages at all would be even better. In fact, you should have to pay your employer for the privilege of working.
Since you do work, you should pay taxes so you have some skin in the game. Those who "earn" by investing should be allowed to live tax-free, as should trust fund babies and the businesses paying you those low wages. Skin in the game is not required from them.
If you get sick and you can't afford to pay cash, you should just die. Get it over with quickly, will you?
Forget about retiring. That's reserved for the Mitt Romneys and the politicians of the world. You should just work until you die (see above re: getting sick). We are going to claim the Social Security you've worked for all your life is an "entitlement," then we're going to take it. We really don't know what we're going to do with it after we take it, but it doesn't matter. We want it. You should have saved more while you were working (see low wages above).
Crying about the economy, are you? Well, you should have gotten an education! What's that? You have a Masters degree? Well, you just didn't get the *right* degree. That's why I am all for supporting public higher education. Oh wait, no I'm not."
I could go on and on but I'm running out of characters.
"I want to ensure that you earn the lowest wages possible. No wages at all would be even better. In fact, you should have to pay your employer for the privilege of working.
Since you do work, you should pay taxes so you have some skin in the game. Those who "earn" by investing should be allowed to live tax-free, as should trust fund babies and the businesses paying you those low wages. Skin in the game is not required from them.
If you get sick and you can't afford to pay cash, you should just die. Get it over with quickly, will you?
Forget about retiring. That's reserved for the Mitt Romneys and the politicians of the world. You should just work until you die (see above re: getting sick). We are going to claim the Social Security you've worked for all your life is an "entitlement," then we're going to take it. We really don't know what we're going to do with it after we take it, but it doesn't matter. We want it. You should have saved more while you were working (see low wages above).
Crying about the economy, are you? Well, you should have gotten an education! What's that? You have a Masters degree? Well, you just didn't get the *right* degree. That's why I am all for supporting public higher education. Oh wait, no I'm not."
I could go on and on but I'm running out of characters.
2
Remember when W. gave huge tax cuts to the wealthy, and then he presided over two terms of enormous job growth and economic boom times? Yeah, me neither.
2
Republican are snake oil salesmen and the people fall for it every time. The truth? Truth does not matter anymore to them. Mr. Ailes and Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck, the tv preachers - all of them suck vulnerable people into a maelstrom of lies. When will it end? When will those people wake up and step out of that bubble?
We hear so much about how it's the 'liberal media' that is the problem (we hear that from the Republicans) and that it's Democrats who run all the media. But proof? There is none. They never offer proof, only accusations. And, please, does anyone think Roger Ailes is a Democrat? That one network, owned by an Australian who bought his way into America, has created this mess but I never hear the Republicans complaining about him - well, Trump did, but we all know Trump is not a Republican, he is a Trumpist. If Ailes and Murdoch and their liar-spewing monster they have created suddenly disappeared, our country would be immediately 75% better and more able to progress into the 21st century.
We hear so much about how it's the 'liberal media' that is the problem (we hear that from the Republicans) and that it's Democrats who run all the media. But proof? There is none. They never offer proof, only accusations. And, please, does anyone think Roger Ailes is a Democrat? That one network, owned by an Australian who bought his way into America, has created this mess but I never hear the Republicans complaining about him - well, Trump did, but we all know Trump is not a Republican, he is a Trumpist. If Ailes and Murdoch and their liar-spewing monster they have created suddenly disappeared, our country would be immediately 75% better and more able to progress into the 21st century.
1
Neoliberalism has destroyed the Democratic Party as much as Libertarianism has destroyed the Republican Party. Neither party has the capability of lifting the middle and lower classes with their policies. It is telling that we don't know why things get better under Democrats and worse under Republicans. What we do know is that the "better" under Democrats is not affecting the middle and lower classes as much as the worse under Republicans. The rich, however, seem to do extremely well under both the Democrats and Republicans. We are in a downward spiral with the Republicans slamming on the gas petal and the Democrats just trying to take some of the pressure off the gas petal. Neither has the capability nor the desire to apply the brakes and turn the car around.
1
Maybe people tend to vote democratic when they think the economy can afford it?
Maybe the Democrats and Republicans have nothing to do with economic gains or losses. Maybe we should focus on the private sector. It corrects itself when it is doing poorly and does poorly when it gets too greedy. The Republicans and Democrats may just be the voices of the various segments that make up the economy…kind of like back seat drivers and not the one with their hands pin the wheel.
Republican economic theory rests on the ideology of "trickle down" economics.
As Pope Francis notes, and gets right, in his Apostolic Exhortation of a few years ago, this theory "expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting" (par. #54, EVANGELII GAUDIUM).
As Pope Francis notes, and gets right, in his Apostolic Exhortation of a few years ago, this theory "expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting" (par. #54, EVANGELII GAUDIUM).
2
So you want the metric to be the growth of GDP while the president is in office? First let’s note that you are endorsing measuring what occurs during a president’s term, making no allowance for blaming his predecessor. Are you now willing to blame President Obama for all the job losses of 2009 after January 20th? Second, neither you nor Blinder and Watson have established any scientific relationship between the policies of the presidents studied and GDP growth. You are blatantly engaged in the fallacy of post hoc ergo hoc. You suggest that the Bill Clinton took office so the economy grew. The economy actually started growing six quarters before Clinton took office, and because it kept growing the minute he took office the study you cite gives him credit for the growth. I suspect that you, Dr. Krugman, don’t really believe this, but Mrs. Clinton apparently does. So Carly Fiorina is right, Clinton has no idea how the economy works.
White entitlement will seize to be an issue by 2020! And the dreamers won't forget who has been voting against their god given 'human rights'!
Has anyone been watching the conservative debate? If you want to get an idea how partisan, quarrelsome and un-presidental adults can act, listen to any news channel.
There will be a decision for all Americans to decide if we want a Feudal System (Libertarians)with the 1% running death camps . A Religious Caste System (Tea Party) like India runs. That through religious bigotry you are born in your money by God and you should be thankful for that and expect nothing more. Or, do we follow the European evolution of Social Democracy.
Has anyone been watching the conservative debate? If you want to get an idea how partisan, quarrelsome and un-presidental adults can act, listen to any news channel.
There will be a decision for all Americans to decide if we want a Feudal System (Libertarians)with the 1% running death camps . A Religious Caste System (Tea Party) like India runs. That through religious bigotry you are born in your money by God and you should be thankful for that and expect nothing more. Or, do we follow the European evolution of Social Democracy.
Since I can remember, republican party has been labeled a party for big business and democrats a party for the worker. How did this come about? The historical memory of “We the People” for we all live the day-to-day results of their actions and it is not pretty.
It is understandably why people believe in the fallacy that Democratic presidents are economic saviors, especially when Krugman provides information to back it.... With that said why even bother to have an election next year and just crown Hillary.....
Most commenters should carefully re-read Dr. Krugman’s column as well as the outstanding Blinder/Watson paper that he cites.
Simply put, the reasons for differences in economic performance are either unknown or attributable to “luck”. Notably, “There’s no indication that the Democratic advantage can be explained by better monetary and fiscal policies.”
As such, Republican promises of tax/regulatory-driven growth are not realistic. Unfortunately, neither are Democrat promises of fiscal/monetary-driven growth.
Simply put, the reasons for differences in economic performance are either unknown or attributable to “luck”. Notably, “There’s no indication that the Democratic advantage can be explained by better monetary and fiscal policies.”
As such, Republican promises of tax/regulatory-driven growth are not realistic. Unfortunately, neither are Democrat promises of fiscal/monetary-driven growth.
"Republicans declar[e] that they have the ultimate recipe for prosperity — and hope that nobody points out their historically poor track record, [and if someone does, they] [s]tart yelling about media bias."
Yes! -- and the media responds by caving in since they are not challenged. This is why it is important to call out the media to carry out its charge. We should demand politifact-like truth analysis for op-ed pieces. People have a right to their opinions (judgments based on evidence), but not to their own facts. No op-ed writer should be allowed to make things up and present it as truth. No person interviewed for a story should be allowed to do so either. And no press-release should be printed or quoted without some basic fact-checking. If you don't read Krugman or Blinder and Watson's paper, how else would you know that Fiorina was simply lying? -- and whether the lying was to herself or to us does not really matter!
Yes! -- and the media responds by caving in since they are not challenged. This is why it is important to call out the media to carry out its charge. We should demand politifact-like truth analysis for op-ed pieces. People have a right to their opinions (judgments based on evidence), but not to their own facts. No op-ed writer should be allowed to make things up and present it as truth. No person interviewed for a story should be allowed to do so either. And no press-release should be printed or quoted without some basic fact-checking. If you don't read Krugman or Blinder and Watson's paper, how else would you know that Fiorina was simply lying? -- and whether the lying was to herself or to us does not really matter!
Now, add in policies that take years to go into effect. Add in the fact that, when you're at the bottom of a financial cycle, there's no where to go but up.
Fuzzy math from a partisan opinion writer.
Fuzzy math from a partisan opinion writer.
Krugman: "And if someone does point to that record, you know what they’ll do: Start yelling about media bias."
The Republican forte is the "ad hominem" argument; that is the only explanation for "yelling about media bias."
The Republican forte is the "ad hominem" argument; that is the only explanation for "yelling about media bias."
1
I think, Dr. K, that to explain the stark discrepancy in D v R economic performance you have to look outside economics. Obama, Clinton, and Carter avoided starting any major foreign wars on credit. No one except Reagan/Volker delberately started a recession. It may come down to the Obama administration's slogan, contra the W Bush admin, "Don't do stupid...stuff."
Dear Mr. Friedman,
No word about the composition of the legislative branch during the same time periods?
It seems you, and everybody else I talk to, feels that whoever is president is, somehow, Constitutionally responsible for the "economy" whatever that might be. Is it the skewed "inflation" numbers that are under POTUS control? How about the employment/unemployment numbers, is that the "economy" POTUS controls? Are "housing starts/sales" the "economy" POTUS selectively manipulates or controls? I know, POTUS controls the "Stock Market", maybe THAT's the "economy"!
I like your short answer, "We don't know."
Yet it seems every 4 years, one person is either pilloried or applauded for his/her "handling" of the "economy" as if it were a special, very expensive automobile that only a POTUS drives.
Americans really don't like things too complex so it's a lot easier to blame/credit one guy/girl for the whole shebang. And, of course, both major "parties" love this scenario; it's easier than actually trying to explain the "complexity" of markets, the pressures and geo-political forces that are causing swifter changes and pitfalls than ever before seen.
That requires thinking and work something a POTUS, at least from ONE party, doesn't really have time for with all the fund raising to be done.
No word about the composition of the legislative branch during the same time periods?
It seems you, and everybody else I talk to, feels that whoever is president is, somehow, Constitutionally responsible for the "economy" whatever that might be. Is it the skewed "inflation" numbers that are under POTUS control? How about the employment/unemployment numbers, is that the "economy" POTUS controls? Are "housing starts/sales" the "economy" POTUS selectively manipulates or controls? I know, POTUS controls the "Stock Market", maybe THAT's the "economy"!
I like your short answer, "We don't know."
Yet it seems every 4 years, one person is either pilloried or applauded for his/her "handling" of the "economy" as if it were a special, very expensive automobile that only a POTUS drives.
Americans really don't like things too complex so it's a lot easier to blame/credit one guy/girl for the whole shebang. And, of course, both major "parties" love this scenario; it's easier than actually trying to explain the "complexity" of markets, the pressures and geo-political forces that are causing swifter changes and pitfalls than ever before seen.
That requires thinking and work something a POTUS, at least from ONE party, doesn't really have time for with all the fund raising to be done.
Yes we have the weakest post recession recovery in American history with a Democrat at the helm. GDP growth averaged 2.24% over 24 quarters. I guess that's just "bad luck"? I guess new entitlements and 10,000 pages of new regulations on businesses have little to do with it, right? No mention of the economy under Carter which was also awful. And of course most stats show that both the Reagan and Clinton Presidency were marked by rapid economic growth. Since we have had a President for 7 years that has supported the policies that the author agrees with (more spending, more taxation, no regard to the debt), maybe he can explain why the economy remains so weak? Because when you talk to business owners and entrepreneurs they all say the same thing, they are choking with regulations, taxes, and increased costs which restrict their hiring. We have the highest corporate income tax in the world making us uncompetitive, and forcing US businesses to look for better places for their headquarters and operations.
The Democrat party now has a renewed emphasis on blaming the rich and successful (except entertainers of course) for pretty much all the evil in the world, and promises to punish them heartily if they win another term. This will mean more flight of these entrepreneurs and doers to places where their talents and hard work are appreciated. Why would they stay?
The Democrat party now has a renewed emphasis on blaming the rich and successful (except entertainers of course) for pretty much all the evil in the world, and promises to punish them heartily if they win another term. This will mean more flight of these entrepreneurs and doers to places where their talents and hard work are appreciated. Why would they stay?
5
I have a slightly different perspective on the issue, and it concerns our current neglect of 'infrastructure spending'. The Democrats tend to favor such projects, whereas the Republicans seem to delay until bridges collapse, water supplies fail and pipelines explode.
A study in the Economist magazine several years ago showed that the average infrastructure project, whether public or private, provided a 20% return to the whole of society when less visible factors like reduced traffic congestion, crime and public health are factored in. Moreover the benefit keeps producing dividends for years to come. The problem is that such investments are less visible, even when the effects become highly visible years later.
The economy these last few years has sputtered along because of lack of demand for goods and services which has fueled a reduction in capital investment in production capacity.
What better way to stimulate the economy for the benefit of all by replacing ageing bridges, pot-holed roads, buildings, water treatment plants, schools, street lighting as well as investing in better community policing and improved education, especially with effective interest rates at rock bottom?
I would suggest that by reducing taxes on the wealthy as Republicans are inclined to do, investment horizons are sub-optimized to favor short-term (and sub-optimal) returns for the few at the expense of long-term benefits for the many.
A study in the Economist magazine several years ago showed that the average infrastructure project, whether public or private, provided a 20% return to the whole of society when less visible factors like reduced traffic congestion, crime and public health are factored in. Moreover the benefit keeps producing dividends for years to come. The problem is that such investments are less visible, even when the effects become highly visible years later.
The economy these last few years has sputtered along because of lack of demand for goods and services which has fueled a reduction in capital investment in production capacity.
What better way to stimulate the economy for the benefit of all by replacing ageing bridges, pot-holed roads, buildings, water treatment plants, schools, street lighting as well as investing in better community policing and improved education, especially with effective interest rates at rock bottom?
I would suggest that by reducing taxes on the wealthy as Republicans are inclined to do, investment horizons are sub-optimized to favor short-term (and sub-optimal) returns for the few at the expense of long-term benefits for the many.
7
I enjoy reading Richard Luettgen's posts. He's partisan, but he presents the Republican point of view very well. What bothers me about his posts is that he seems to be unable to understand our recent economic history. Middle class incomes in the US have stagnated for the last forty years while the incomes of upper middle class and wealthy Americans have kept on climbing. I've benefitted from this, but the country hasn't. Too many people in this country live from pay check to pay check. Aggregate demand is weak, and as a result American corporations, though flush with cash, aren't expanding. As Marriner Eccles said, you can't have a poker game if one player has all the money. It puzzles me why intelligent conservatives can't see this.
9
Does "economy doing better" extend to reduction in deficit? It should.
If it does, surely Democrats have an even stronger case. Republicans seem to bring on tax-cuts for the wealthy (using failed/flawed magic asterisk), increasing defense and expensive war expenditures, tax cuts/loopholes for businesses, etc.
And then using the "deficit out of control" argument to sell to the voters and then cutback programs that have been paid for during our working lifetimes such as social security and social safety-nets like food stamps.
If it does, surely Democrats have an even stronger case. Republicans seem to bring on tax-cuts for the wealthy (using failed/flawed magic asterisk), increasing defense and expensive war expenditures, tax cuts/loopholes for businesses, etc.
And then using the "deficit out of control" argument to sell to the voters and then cutback programs that have been paid for during our working lifetimes such as social security and social safety-nets like food stamps.
6
Imagine the economic growth if the Democrats didn't get obstructed all the time by Congress when in the White House. I suspect that if the Democrats had the power to pass their policies through congress undiluted, that an average of 5 to 6 percent GDP growth would occur. Beware of any period when Republicans retain the majority in the Senate for twelve years. Keep up the good work Paul!
5
AS I have been saying lately, it is the Republican Freak Show, where the barkers promise that you will see things, like you never have before.
And once pay for the ticket, and get into the tent, you see that is is all some sort of fake and make believe. The bearded lady, the sword swallower, the plastic man, an such. They are all there, and the barker today is Fox News or Faux Noise.
So step right up ladies and gentlemen, and see the show. The financier, the CEO, the preacher, they are all there, and it only costs you your bank account.
Why do people fall for this nonsense, it is simple, read "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer. Or better yet, "Elmer Gantry" by Sinclair Lewis.
Good essays on how to scam the American public.
And once pay for the ticket, and get into the tent, you see that is is all some sort of fake and make believe. The bearded lady, the sword swallower, the plastic man, an such. They are all there, and the barker today is Fox News or Faux Noise.
So step right up ladies and gentlemen, and see the show. The financier, the CEO, the preacher, they are all there, and it only costs you your bank account.
Why do people fall for this nonsense, it is simple, read "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer. Or better yet, "Elmer Gantry" by Sinclair Lewis.
Good essays on how to scam the American public.
7
It is interesting that Paul Krugman chose1947 for his reference point. I wonder what might be the statistics if he chose 1930 and encompassed the great depression under F.D.R. Conversely, he might have started at 1980 with the advent of Ronald Reagan's formula of low taxes and deregulation of industry. In any event, Paul Krugman does say we don't know why the economies have been better under democrats since 1947. I don't suppose he has forgotten his recent comments about leaders doing well because of an economy they had no part of.
It's true the economy is today much better than it was when President Obama took office. It is equally true that the 2008 economy was poised to rebound just for cyclical reasons if nothing else. We should by all rights have been enjoying robust growth and steady gains in wages and employment for years. Consider how the deep recession of 1982 rebounded under Ronald Reagan.
Today, I hear complaints about median wages that have actually been declining for years, a wage gap that is larger than it was in 2008, and a shrinking work force because so many people have given up trying to find a job. Many of the people making these same complaints just don't connect that this economy follows seven years under Barrack Obama. He enjoyed a filibuster proof majority in Congress during the first two of those years, the time when the policies were written that would produce the fruits we eat today.
It's true the economy is today much better than it was when President Obama took office. It is equally true that the 2008 economy was poised to rebound just for cyclical reasons if nothing else. We should by all rights have been enjoying robust growth and steady gains in wages and employment for years. Consider how the deep recession of 1982 rebounded under Ronald Reagan.
Today, I hear complaints about median wages that have actually been declining for years, a wage gap that is larger than it was in 2008, and a shrinking work force because so many people have given up trying to find a job. Many of the people making these same complaints just don't connect that this economy follows seven years under Barrack Obama. He enjoyed a filibuster proof majority in Congress during the first two of those years, the time when the policies were written that would produce the fruits we eat today.
2
Almost no one would entrust their health to someone who did not believe in medicine. Almost no one would choose to entrust their safety to a building whose developer did not believe in engineering. Yet millions of Americans regularly vote to entrust our government, and its impact on the economy, to Republicans who do not believe in government.
When Republican yahoos are in power, government becomes a feeding ground picked upon, not for the general welfare, but for the benefit of private interests - not only lower taxes for the wealthy and corporations, but also government contracts, increased privatization, sales and leases of public property, and deregulation to name a few of the methods. All the while, the economic status of most Americans is undercut by methods that include anti-labor measures, increased fees for basic government services, and failure to enforce laws that protect the public.
The inevitable result is bubbles that begin with assets favored by the wealthy, while the great mass of Americans fall behind in their ability to sustain the consumer economy, from which employment flows. We are fortunate that Democrats like Clinton and Obama have been able to pick up the shattered pieces left behind by their Republican predecessors.
When Republican yahoos are in power, government becomes a feeding ground picked upon, not for the general welfare, but for the benefit of private interests - not only lower taxes for the wealthy and corporations, but also government contracts, increased privatization, sales and leases of public property, and deregulation to name a few of the methods. All the while, the economic status of most Americans is undercut by methods that include anti-labor measures, increased fees for basic government services, and failure to enforce laws that protect the public.
The inevitable result is bubbles that begin with assets favored by the wealthy, while the great mass of Americans fall behind in their ability to sustain the consumer economy, from which employment flows. We are fortunate that Democrats like Clinton and Obama have been able to pick up the shattered pieces left behind by their Republican predecessors.
12
Dr Krugman hits the nail straight on the head. Although Republicans have had a dubious economic record, they have been spectacularly successful at selling voters on economic policies that are contrary to their own interests. Promises of spectacular growth are the secret recipe for convincing millions of chickens to vote for Colonel Sanders-- and those chickens apparently don't remember that the promises are never fulfilled.
And just as Dr Krugman admits that he can't explain why the economy does better under Democratic administrations, there doesn't seem to be an explanation for why Democrats don't aggressively attack Republicans for not merely lying and misrepresenting, but for their contempt for the truth and divorce from reality.
But the true gem within this piece is the wonderful phrase, "epistemic closure." It's a terrific Greco-Latin euphemism for the sort of bovine fertilizer spread lavishly by outlets like Fox News and talk radio. From now on, whenever I hear a "conservative" expounding on alternative reality, I'll say "Ah yes... epistemic closure."
And just as Dr Krugman admits that he can't explain why the economy does better under Democratic administrations, there doesn't seem to be an explanation for why Democrats don't aggressively attack Republicans for not merely lying and misrepresenting, but for their contempt for the truth and divorce from reality.
But the true gem within this piece is the wonderful phrase, "epistemic closure." It's a terrific Greco-Latin euphemism for the sort of bovine fertilizer spread lavishly by outlets like Fox News and talk radio. From now on, whenever I hear a "conservative" expounding on alternative reality, I'll say "Ah yes... epistemic closure."
17
Republicans are very adept with Nixon's "Southern Strategy". They have successfully scared a certain group that a vote for them is a vote against the "Others". They also use the tactic so eloquently expressed by Sen. Rubio that "there are no 'Have-Nots' rather we are all the "Soon to haves".
4
When the economy prospers under a Democratic president, Republicans either 1) deny that it's prospering or 2) claim it's prospering because of the policies of the previous Republican president and/or Congress.
If the economy suffers under a Republican president, Republicans either 1) deny it's suffering or 2) claim it's suffering because of the previous Democratic president and/or Congress.
That's epistemic closure in a nutshell. Emphasis on "nut."
If the economy suffers under a Republican president, Republicans either 1) deny it's suffering or 2) claim it's suffering because of the previous Democratic president and/or Congress.
That's epistemic closure in a nutshell. Emphasis on "nut."
28
I believe the economy does better under Democrats because the little guy generally have more money in their pockets. As a rule, most of it is spent on goods and services supplied by the wealthy who also do better under Democrats.
I haven't seen the latest figures, but the stock market has averaged 10% better/yr under Democrat presidents than Republicans.
I haven't seen the latest figures, but the stock market has averaged 10% better/yr under Democrat presidents than Republicans.
I would offer one partial explanation for the overwhelming economic successes of Democratic administrations for almost seven decades is simply this: Democratic policies tend to favor the middle and lower classes, putting money into the pockets of those who will spend it. This might be by social programs or by supporting unions.
I can't link to it, but a fact filled web page I read some years ago comparing eight economic indicators since WWII show that Democratic administrations took all eight categories. Not some, not most, ALL.
The First and Second Republican Great Depressions came about for about the same reasons (un/poorly regulated Wall Street) and the Hoover/Boosh "solutions" were about the same: Give money to corporations to make things, perhaps employ a few more people. Only when the Roosevelt/Obama programs of saving the middle and lower classes from extinction by direct government action, were the disastrous policies of Rethuglicans corrected.
But, hey, facts, they mean nothing to Republicans.
I can't link to it, but a fact filled web page I read some years ago comparing eight economic indicators since WWII show that Democratic administrations took all eight categories. Not some, not most, ALL.
The First and Second Republican Great Depressions came about for about the same reasons (un/poorly regulated Wall Street) and the Hoover/Boosh "solutions" were about the same: Give money to corporations to make things, perhaps employ a few more people. Only when the Roosevelt/Obama programs of saving the middle and lower classes from extinction by direct government action, were the disastrous policies of Rethuglicans corrected.
But, hey, facts, they mean nothing to Republicans.
21
The middle-class hasn't been doing so well under Obama. He also has not been very pro-worker or pro-union in his policies, e.g. his embrace of TPP and the import-export bank. Wall Street has been doing very well, however. So your observations don't really hold up.
Certainly there has been tremendous growth for the wealthy under Republican economic theory. The claim is, this prosperity eventually trickles down and raises all the boats.
But no one ever said how soon that trickling actually happens.
Maybe it just takes several decades? So, you an I may not see it, but perhaps we can take heart that our children's children will. Patience, patience.
But no one ever said how soon that trickling actually happens.
Maybe it just takes several decades? So, you an I may not see it, but perhaps we can take heart that our children's children will. Patience, patience.
10
your children will be slaves in their own country
if you cannot see that already brewing, youre willfully blind
if you cannot see that already brewing, youre willfully blind
Wanna buy some Florida wetlands? Come on down.
I think that the basic problem is big, fat bloated Government, lack of term limits for congressman, and special interest groups for both parties. The Federal government is a big, monolithic, place that rewards spending, and assures career permanency. I believe that you could cut staff 25% and institute management that manages by rewarding success, and punishing for waste. The VA is an example of a vast out of control bureaucracy that cannot do the job they need to do, because there is no accountability. The VA should be privatized and the veterans would see a system that works for them.
In conclusion, I am sick of the broken, spend thrift Government that throws money at everything, but does not get to the root of the problem which is to manage it for performance, not as a place of a job for life.
Both parties are to blame on potentiating this monstrosity, and can only hope that someone who has business experience can control it. Hillary would be a disaster as she has no private management experience, but so would Trump who has the business expertise, but not the world stage experience.
Is there anyone. anyone of any persuasion who can right our sinking ship?
In conclusion, I am sick of the broken, spend thrift Government that throws money at everything, but does not get to the root of the problem which is to manage it for performance, not as a place of a job for life.
Both parties are to blame on potentiating this monstrosity, and can only hope that someone who has business experience can control it. Hillary would be a disaster as she has no private management experience, but so would Trump who has the business expertise, but not the world stage experience.
Is there anyone. anyone of any persuasion who can right our sinking ship?
I've got no objection to a government that throws money at the poor and middle class. I do object to a government that throws money at the already rich.
One could argue that the difference between these two approaches is much of what Krugman is talking about.
One could argue that the difference between these two approaches is much of what Krugman is talking about.
20
If I were a Florida resident I would be paying attention to what the Governor did with Medicare. And, I would pay attention to the rising sea level, working to move homes back from that future disaster. Of course, Florida might be depending on a stand your ground thing. If Florida depends on old retirees to keep pumping its economy, rather than real jobs, it will limp along.
Government spending as a ratio to GDP has, uhm, gone down under President Obama. Keep up with the reading.
How do Democrats expect Hillary to make the case for a more equitable economy when she has been feeding at the Wall Street trough for most of her career? Marco Rubio has now become the cup-bearer to several billionaires, yet can you imagine a debate between him and Hillary on the influence of money in economic policy? Who's the pot and who's the kettle? They are both hogtied by their loyalties as to what to say and do, so the eye-opening statistics provided by Dr. Krugman and others will never reach the average voter. Bernie Sanders on the other hand, is under no such gag order.
6
It's probably more compelling to know how to reign in the Wall Street greed than simply shouting it down. Love Bernie. Can't get elected President but he will make a tremendous Senate majority leader in the Hillary era.
We do ourselves a great disservice when we examine economic systems instead of where on the totalitarian democratic axis a nation lies.
America is failing its people because it is sliding into oligarchy. Democracy lifts all boats and totalitarianism lifts select boats.
America does well when its people have the ultimate say in how much control both the public and private sectors have in their lives.
The USA continues to be the wealthiest most powerful nation on the planet. It would remain so whether it was communist or fascist. The experiment in democracy after World War Two lifted most people out of poverty but democracy requires an educated and informed population which has come under fire since the heyday of Joseph Raymond McCarthy.
Americans would be much better off under social democracy than under corporate oligarchy which is now the case. Americans would be better off under democratic capitalism than they are under our bought and paid for congress. It isn't about state or private control the well being of the population is about democracy and totalitarianism.
When we blame government or big business for our economic failures it is a deflection away from what really ails our society and that is the erosion of democracy. It is time for a second American revolution one of government of the people by the people and for the people.
I am mildly optimistic because technology gives us a chance at real democracy. Unfortunately democracy has been given a Newspeak meaning.
America is failing its people because it is sliding into oligarchy. Democracy lifts all boats and totalitarianism lifts select boats.
America does well when its people have the ultimate say in how much control both the public and private sectors have in their lives.
The USA continues to be the wealthiest most powerful nation on the planet. It would remain so whether it was communist or fascist. The experiment in democracy after World War Two lifted most people out of poverty but democracy requires an educated and informed population which has come under fire since the heyday of Joseph Raymond McCarthy.
Americans would be much better off under social democracy than under corporate oligarchy which is now the case. Americans would be better off under democratic capitalism than they are under our bought and paid for congress. It isn't about state or private control the well being of the population is about democracy and totalitarianism.
When we blame government or big business for our economic failures it is a deflection away from what really ails our society and that is the erosion of democracy. It is time for a second American revolution one of government of the people by the people and for the people.
I am mildly optimistic because technology gives us a chance at real democracy. Unfortunately democracy has been given a Newspeak meaning.
19
This is not new. When I took Econ 10 almost 50 years ago, our instructor--who later won a Nobel prize in economics--said that he could not figure out why business people favored Republicans, since business always did better under Democrats.
What I object to--and I am sure Professor Krugman knows better--is attributing whatever happens in the economy to the party affiliation of the person in the White House. The "Reagan recovery" of the 1980s, for example, was surely attributable to actions of the Fed, with the vaunted Reagan tax cuts playing virtually no role. Likewise, President Obama should get neither credit nor blame for what has happened since 2008--except for the original stimulus package (way too small) and the ACA that seems to be helping the economy as well as the quality of health care. The run up of the debt since 2008 is pretty much the natural consequence of a near depression. Except for letting the high end Bush tax cuts expire, government fiscal policy has been controlled by Republicans in congress and negative. Think what the growth rate in GDP might be without the sequester and the block on highway spending. (Again, thanks be to the Fed.)
If there is one factor that explains to inverse relationship between Republicans running things and the economy, I suggest that tax cuts going exclusively to the wealthy have little stimulative value and that is the only economic plan Republicans have had since 1980.
What I object to--and I am sure Professor Krugman knows better--is attributing whatever happens in the economy to the party affiliation of the person in the White House. The "Reagan recovery" of the 1980s, for example, was surely attributable to actions of the Fed, with the vaunted Reagan tax cuts playing virtually no role. Likewise, President Obama should get neither credit nor blame for what has happened since 2008--except for the original stimulus package (way too small) and the ACA that seems to be helping the economy as well as the quality of health care. The run up of the debt since 2008 is pretty much the natural consequence of a near depression. Except for letting the high end Bush tax cuts expire, government fiscal policy has been controlled by Republicans in congress and negative. Think what the growth rate in GDP might be without the sequester and the block on highway spending. (Again, thanks be to the Fed.)
If there is one factor that explains to inverse relationship between Republicans running things and the economy, I suggest that tax cuts going exclusively to the wealthy have little stimulative value and that is the only economic plan Republicans have had since 1980.
18
Reagan tax cuts created a recession in the early 80's. He was forced to raise taxes later. Also the oil market took a decided dive in retail prices. You are absolutely correct about the FED policy change. Too bad Paul Volker didn't figure that out during Carter's term. Hmm....?
I'm just a little old lady from down South. I don't understand why the Republicans who claim to be such vaunted economics experts don't understand return on investment. Why they can't differentiate between a good, sound long-term investment and the equivalent of day-trading.
It seems to me the key to sustaining this enterprise United States is continually boosting and enabling the number of productive citizens capable of (a) supporting themselves and reasonable government through taxes, (b) creating and buying things, and (c) needing fewer safety nets.
Democrats historically have made more "investments" in citizens--education, healthcare access, a hand-up out of stultifying poverty, and you could hypothesize economic growth is the result.
You'd think that, even if Republicans don't embrace the humane reasons to help people, they'd at least recognize the business sense of promoting a larger customer base able to buy stuff. But no.
It seems to me the key to sustaining this enterprise United States is continually boosting and enabling the number of productive citizens capable of (a) supporting themselves and reasonable government through taxes, (b) creating and buying things, and (c) needing fewer safety nets.
Democrats historically have made more "investments" in citizens--education, healthcare access, a hand-up out of stultifying poverty, and you could hypothesize economic growth is the result.
You'd think that, even if Republicans don't embrace the humane reasons to help people, they'd at least recognize the business sense of promoting a larger customer base able to buy stuff. But no.
20
Very wise sentiments. It's for these very same points that we all know why the nation prospers for all of us, not just the few under Democratic leadership. Thank you for simplifying the discussion.
You have to spend money to make money. That holds true for Government just as much as business. The idea of starving the Government of revenue by instituting lower taxes cripples our economy and the idea of lower taxes stimulating the economy was always baloney. It is just a lie when in fact the purpose of promising lower taxes is to buy votes and garner payoffs from campaign donors.
17
Which Clinton- the one with the balanced budget amendment and tax reduction, or the other one?
1
You must be referring to George Clinton, the African American comedian. We've never had a "Balanced Budget Amendment, nor was there any tax reduction under any Clinton in politics.
Wouldn't it be nice if one of the empty suits at the Republican debates (the 'moderators') were to ask the other empty suits (the 'candidates') about this? I'm sure that the candidates would deny the reality of the numbers, but it would be interesting to watch.
The reality is that the goal of the Republicans' economic and tax policies is not economic growth, it is looting the country for the 0.1%. They are not opposed to economic growth, it just isn't their highest priority. I'd have to say that they have been pretty successful in achieving their goal.
The reality is that the goal of the Republicans' economic and tax policies is not economic growth, it is looting the country for the 0.1%. They are not opposed to economic growth, it just isn't their highest priority. I'd have to say that they have been pretty successful in achieving their goal.
8
What a waste of column space to explore economic growth under republican or democrat Presidents. The issue is so much more complicated than that. Congress and the Fed can play more of a significant role in economic policy than the President. Who holds the White House is not determinative by any means.
"Not determinative by any means" ....really? Of course, it isn't the only determinative reason for econic performance. A
less than close reading of the article should show you the writer agrees. But to say executive policies are not of critical importance is a view colored by ideological blinders.
less than close reading of the article should show you the writer agrees. But to say executive policies are not of critical importance is a view colored by ideological blinders.
Then why does the country so consistently do better with a Democrat in the White House?
To be fair, "Even so, the Obama record compares favorably on a number of indicators with that of George W. Bush. In particular, despite all the talk about job-killing policies, private-sector employment is eight million higher than it was when Barack Obama took office, twice the job gains achieved under his predecessor before the recession struck," is somewhat of an apples and oranges comparison. Bush, pre-Great Recession was adding jobs to a steady growth economy. Obama, post-Great Recission, was restoring jobs to a recovering economy.
2
Jeff, the implication of what you just said is that the Bush administration presided over a significant job loss.
"historically, the economy has indeed done better under Democrats." This has been said repeatedly by impartial independent economics.
But Republicans are good at twisting around and claim credit for their policy enacted just before the Democrats came into the White House, as many Republicans claim the phenomenal economic & job growth during the Clinton administration was the result of Reagan tax cuts & consequent increased revenue - forget that Bill Clinton raised the marginal rate to 39.6%, which was only 28% under Reagan! In between GHW Bush raised the rate to 31%, from 28%.
This sort of deliberate distortion of facts, and saying it with a straight face as Carly Fiorina did in her column in WSJ. The unfortunate reality is that the public tend to believe those distortions. That's how Republicans win elections. The electorate clearly votes against their own personal economic interests - In Kansas Gov Brownback was reelected, despite even many Republicans criticized Brownback's drastic tax-cut policies!
One can only hope the public would realize once & for all that the Republicans were actually selling them a bill of goods. Then many would vote out Republican legislators & governors.
But Republicans are good at twisting around and claim credit for their policy enacted just before the Democrats came into the White House, as many Republicans claim the phenomenal economic & job growth during the Clinton administration was the result of Reagan tax cuts & consequent increased revenue - forget that Bill Clinton raised the marginal rate to 39.6%, which was only 28% under Reagan! In between GHW Bush raised the rate to 31%, from 28%.
This sort of deliberate distortion of facts, and saying it with a straight face as Carly Fiorina did in her column in WSJ. The unfortunate reality is that the public tend to believe those distortions. That's how Republicans win elections. The electorate clearly votes against their own personal economic interests - In Kansas Gov Brownback was reelected, despite even many Republicans criticized Brownback's drastic tax-cut policies!
One can only hope the public would realize once & for all that the Republicans were actually selling them a bill of goods. Then many would vote out Republican legislators & governors.
14
50 million in poverty, 47 million on food stamps, falling middle class income, thundering national debt, no improvement in minority unemployment and lack of global leadership, is that your definition of successful government? Had the Republicans been in power you would have condemned those realities as proof positive of a failed presidency.
2
In fairness, the repubs have worked very hard to thwart every possible advance that can help the 99%, or to even remotely support anything President Obama proposes that would help the general economy. I think any advance made by this administration is remarkable and noteworthy. Just think how incredibly better it would be if every senator and congressman had worked for the greater good and not just a few rich patrons.
3
The Republicans are in power - House and Senate. Your post is full of inaccuracies. Please stop poisoning the information base with this type of post.
The fact that you read Krugman's article as simple cheerleading for the current Administration is an excellent illustration of epistemic closure.
Krugman explains it all rather well. GOP candidates have to keep insisting that tax cuts for the rich will benefit everyone, despite ample evidence to the contrary, for a couple of reasons. The wealthy who finance their campaigns insist on tax cuts, even though many if not most GOP voters believe the rich are taxed too little. The other reason is the idea that the only way to achieve meaningful cuts in spending is by starving the government of tax revenues. This leads to a situation in which the GOP can claim that government programs like Medicare and Social Security are "unaffordable" and must be "reformed," meaning "cut." You'll note that they seldom claim programs they favor, like Defense, are "unaffordable."
12
If one's point of view is mired in the illusion of a single dimension Cosmos, one is never going to be able to understand how energy moves through a system. It appears mysterious because you are not looking at the kinds of energies that move energy. How people feel, how they think, things are going, any even small steps that foster the Common Good and the General Welfare create an energy flow through the economic system that generates "growth", well being, willingness to participate in the systems flow. The Democrats manage to generate these kinds of energy flows thus the economy does better. The others, I hesitate to call them Republicans, thinking of individuals like Lincoln and Teddy, but those individuals generate hate, fear, doubt. they divide in their efforts to dominate and enslave. Thus the General Good and the Common Welfare suffer badly, the economy tanks!
8
If you accept my thesis & many others that discovery, invention, and technology are important drivers of the economy, there are many noteworthy GOP Presidents. Our founders used public funds for canals & post roads, Lincoln facilitated a national rail network that converted a huge amount of non-productive land and ores to income and products. Teddy Roosevelt did his thing with the Panama Canal & stamped the US as a super economic leader, Eisenhower brought us nuclear power, space technology, and the Interstate Highway System, Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency and approved the first Earth Day for April 22, 1970. Since his library has granted access to his papers, he knew about carbon combustion emissions and its impact on climate. His chief aide for science promised Pat Moynihan, who was worked in the Nixon administration, to investigate. Later, Senator Moynihan became the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works committee & pushed environment technologies that would evolve our economy away from fossil fuels. He introduced superconducting Maglev transport & inventors James Powell & Gordon Danby. Maglev R&D was defeated by existing transport interests. Had he been successful, we would now have a 300 mph National Maglev Network for passengers and freight trucks, Maglev launched solar generators to orbit & synthetic fuels from air and water. Probably creating new industry & plenty of jobs to replace the disinvestment in fossil fuels now in progress.
5
So you believe in government. That's the difference.
Krugman always tries to throw his weight around as a Keynesian theorist ignoring the fact that budgets are first and foremost political documents disguised with a thin veneer of economic theory for justification. Politics is cyclical with one party always replacing the other and both hauling out their predictable economic theories which fall in and out of favor with the political winds. After eight years of Obama people want a change. They want less government and less borrowing. Krugman may not agree, but for all his theorizing he is just a political tool only this time he is probably going to end up on the losing side.
1
Odd, then, that the government has shrunk and the deficit has radically dropped under the current President.
Of course, those ARE mere numbers based in reality.
Of course, those ARE mere numbers based in reality.
And we haven't even started on states economies where Republican governors have driven their states ever downward if not into the ground including GOP nominee hopefuls Christy, Huckabee and Jindal. Then we have the all the governors who opted out of the ACA for lower income citizens thereby chocking the size of the pool of insured and driving up prices while preventing their states from receiving large federal subsidies
But if you ask me the real problem is still our so called free press that prefers to spin narrative and works hard to sell it rather than go to the trouble of accurately relaying sound information. The thing about todays press is that those running it do not think readers have the attention span or the intelligence to appreciate long form journalism.
But if you ask me the real problem is still our so called free press that prefers to spin narrative and works hard to sell it rather than go to the trouble of accurately relaying sound information. The thing about todays press is that those running it do not think readers have the attention span or the intelligence to appreciate long form journalism.
12
I've looked at the Blider/Watson study. It's relatively solid, but virtually all the differences among the statistics between Democrats and Republican administrations occurred during the period of Truman through the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. The growth rate and other measures of economiic strength numbers for the Truman period are particularly strong, far above any other Presidency in the study. But I think most economists would recognize that that had little to do with any particular political parties' policies and everything to do with the fact that immediately after WWII the U.S. returned to consumer product production where there was a huge amount of pent up demand for consumer products, and meanwhile, much of rest of the world's productive capabilities were prostrate. If you looked just at the last 40 years, starting with the Nixon administration, the growth rates and other data are nearly identical between the two political parties.
Actually, that's wrong. If you leave out Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, & Johnson, you still get 3.3% growth under Democratic presidents, and 2.3% under Republican presidents, which doesn't feel "nearly identical" to me.
Nothing like a little data mining, eh? If you extend the time series back to foundation of our two parties, the Blinder et al. result is even larger. Remember, your crowd owns Hoover.
The Republicans have a reputation for economic success because the smart Republicans are all wealthy. They got wealthy by starving the rest of us so in actual terms the economy suffers under their rule. The Republicans who aren't so smart vote for the Republican Party because they aren't so smart.
11
The President has so little control or influence over our globally interconnected economy that I have never understood people who think otherwise. Beware of politicians who make economic promises.
And this dynamic scoring conservatives like using to justify reality defying economic plans is more like fantasy scoring.
And this dynamic scoring conservatives like using to justify reality defying economic plans is more like fantasy scoring.
4
The economy is controlled by Capitalism, not the government. End of story.
At best, even Fed policy is posited after peering into a Capitalist's crystal ball.
At best, even Fed policy is posited after peering into a Capitalist's crystal ball.
3
Dr. Krugman, please... "There’s no indication that the Democratic advantage can be explained by better monetary and fiscal policies." Isn't this statement disingenuous?
Democrats generally make economic decisions using mainstream economic theories, and Republicans use a fake economic theory, "Supply Side Economics". Lets just list of few key decisions that improved the performance under Democratic presidents:
Democrats raised or lowered tax rates at times, consistent with Keynesian economic theory. In 1993, the big Clinton tax increase was timed perfectly to skim some of the money off the big growth years, and strengthen the nation's balance sheet. In 2009, the huge payroll tax cuts under Obama was critically timed to address the Great Recession. Both proposals passed without a single R vote.
GWBush's initiated a second round of tax cuts in 2003 at the same time he initiated major military spending on a discretionary war (fiscal stimulus), and with unemployment relatively low. We didn't get much bang for our borrowed bucks.
Later during the Great Recession, when we needed to extend fiscal stimulus, the Republican party blocked spending proposals like major infrastructure spending bills, crying about deficits and debts, and demanding a balanced budget.
When will the Republicans learn? The budget should never be balanced, but adjusted based on mainstream economic theories... Keynesian economics rules.
Democrats generally make economic decisions using mainstream economic theories, and Republicans use a fake economic theory, "Supply Side Economics". Lets just list of few key decisions that improved the performance under Democratic presidents:
Democrats raised or lowered tax rates at times, consistent with Keynesian economic theory. In 1993, the big Clinton tax increase was timed perfectly to skim some of the money off the big growth years, and strengthen the nation's balance sheet. In 2009, the huge payroll tax cuts under Obama was critically timed to address the Great Recession. Both proposals passed without a single R vote.
GWBush's initiated a second round of tax cuts in 2003 at the same time he initiated major military spending on a discretionary war (fiscal stimulus), and with unemployment relatively low. We didn't get much bang for our borrowed bucks.
Later during the Great Recession, when we needed to extend fiscal stimulus, the Republican party blocked spending proposals like major infrastructure spending bills, crying about deficits and debts, and demanding a balanced budget.
When will the Republicans learn? The budget should never be balanced, but adjusted based on mainstream economic theories... Keynesian economics rules.
13
Republicans were never much for letting facts get in the way of their agenda. Their three-pronged strategy: 1) To keep the 99% uneducated and uninformed by promoting education policies (vouchers/charter schools) that favor the rich and leave schools to try to get by with the most difficult students and less resources 2) To keep the 99% scared with their politics of fear that promotes a permanent war mentality and 3) To keep the 99% poor by espousing economic/tax policies that favor the 1% and large corporations (we must create economic certainty for corporations while everyone else lives in constant economic uncertainty).
14
Thank you for the facts that underpin what average Americans with functioning neurons know from their own personal/family experience. I would posit that the reason the economy does better under Democrats is a matter of focus and(!) a function of simply not seeking to destroy our government and our democracy. Simply taking those last two elements out leads to a lot of positive outcomes for the 99%, which then creates a stable environment in which all can flourish including the 1%.
It is mind numbingly depressing that the DNC and their candidates are so catastrophically incompetent in conveying their record of providing prosperity for all.
It is mind numbingly depressing that the DNC and their candidates are so catastrophically incompetent in conveying their record of providing prosperity for all.
15
Now I am a Democrat or Independent always but a fiscal conservative, not in the GOP sense but across the board. My plan would balance the budget by putting a top line spending freeze until through attrition (2-3% inflation per year) we ended up with a balanced budget. What we spend on can be debated but how much is fixed , because that is all we are collecting. Doing so, would not create a shock to the economy as it would take 20 years or so to balance etc. That said a very interesting part of the discussion comes in the form of the paper from Princeton that discusses the "Partisan Growth Gaps" My GOP friends would point out that it might be the policies of the predecessor administration that influences the first couple of years at least of the next administration as the infrastructure is in place. When you look at the GOP vs. Democratic growth patterns in that light it seems as if the first couple of years after a GOP administration is when the Democratic Presidents did particularly well and not so much in their 3d and 4th years? I'm pointing this out just to get at the truth. In the end what really works will help us all D or R?
Whenever I hear the Republican types wax nostalgic about the Reagan "era'. I call their bluff and say fine, let's return individual tax rates to what they were under Reagan (at their lowest levels) and index the minimum wage and the gas tax for inflation. And maybe I know why the Dems are better "the economy thing" than the GOPers: competence vs. cronyism. Contrast "you're doing a heckuv job Brownie" to the Obama administration's response to Super Storm Sandy. So it is not just spending the tax dollars and programs and projects but how they get spent that can make a large difference to the economy.
163
Government spending at all levels is a large and important portion of our economy. Cut that spending and you remove much of the fuel that drives the engine. That's not difficult to understand at all.
9
Republicans' response to this, Kent, is essentially that government spending "doesn't count" because, well, because, "taxes"!
Supply-side economics - cutting taxes on the rich and watching those tax cuts pay for themselves - has proved a hoax ever since Reagan tried it. So why won't Democrats, other than Sanders and Warren, say just that? Are they afraid to be caught blaspheming St. Ronald?
9
You don't improve the economy, or make the people better off, by giving more money to the people who need it least and will spend it in the most wasteful way. This should be common sense, but of course, rich Republican donors want to believe that they are better than everyone else and that everything they do benefits the economy, so they donate to candidates who tell them what they want to hear. They don't want to hear that the money they spent on their 4th vacation home would have done far more good if it had been redistributed to improve the lives and health of numerous other people of modest means, even though it's the truth.
9
There is a sky, everyone knows that. It is only logical that Republicans, the visionaries that they purport to be, should declare that they will fill that sky with more pie.
Saul Bellow poetically remarked that ghettoized people, (or for purposes of responding to this essay, "the mired working class") are by nature forced to look skyward. Maybe GOP leaders are more literary than we give them credit for.
Saul Bellow poetically remarked that ghettoized people, (or for purposes of responding to this essay, "the mired working class") are by nature forced to look skyward. Maybe GOP leaders are more literary than we give them credit for.
2
Republicans believe that what's good for the rich is good for the country. It's their religion. And when they talk of growth, they mean higher earnings for big business and the wealthiest among us. Of course lowering taxes and getting rid of government regulations are high on their list of priorities, along with paying as little as possible to working people and the poor. They are able to sell this poppycock because many Americans look at the rich as though they are our nobility and dream that someday they will join their ranks.
8
The simple fact remains that Republican politicians have for years touted lower taxes as a way to buy votes and support from donors. It really is that simple. The promise of money in everybody's pockets gets the candidates elected.
6
"modern conservatives generally live in a bubble into which inconvenient facts can’t penetrate."
That's because "modern conservatives" are authoritarians, they wouldn't recognize actual conservatism if it bit them on the behind. Their crazy economic fantasies might be possible, but only when people are forced to do what they're told.
That's because "modern conservatives" are authoritarians, they wouldn't recognize actual conservatism if it bit them on the behind. Their crazy economic fantasies might be possible, but only when people are forced to do what they're told.
9
The Republicans/Conservatives are able to re-sell their stale economic agenda to the American people because they spice it up with hate, xenophobia, class/race divisiveness, fear mongering, religious bigotry and empire expansionism. This fuels the passions of one issue voters whose single, overriding issues distract their attention from the economic policies that are robbing them of their own future economic security.
Similar to a pickpocket distracting your attention while he pilfers the contents of your pocketbook !!
Similar to a pickpocket distracting your attention while he pilfers the contents of your pocketbook !!
10
I'd be interested in hearing prof krugman's perspective on partisan growth gaps in states/cities and see what are the implications of Baltimore, Chicago, DC, Detroit, etc which have been sole-managed by Democrats for decades.
2
Cities are fundamentally not fully in charge of local economies, being constantly trumped by state politics. Cities can't compete in the legalized bribery of different geo-regions to motivate industries to move. Your trope is simple-minded propaganda as Repub vs Dem politics at the local level doesn't really mean that much. Notice how you aren't including CA state and local politics in your POV? Silicon Valley? NYC?
Why stop at cities? How about looking at the performance of states like Louisiana, Kansas, and Wisconsin (compared to similar states). I'm afraid your narrative does not hold up.
Wealth overly concentrated does not grow an economy - without income to pay for goods and services, supply sits unsold.
8
As I write, I am listening to Jeb! speechify on C-Span after listening to Uncle Ben maunder and spout simplistic platitudes. Bush changed his slogan to "Jeb Can Fix It!" Yes, if elected he will fix the limited repairs to the common wealth made by the dems under Obama and fix them but good! 12 trilllion of new tax cuts mainly benefitting the 1%. Done! Sabotaging the social safety net by lame attempts at block-granting and privatization to benefit a few cronies; converting every state red by degrees. Done and done!
8
Billionaire Mitt Romney paid 13% of his income in Federal taxes - I, a retire pay 20+%. But billionaires get bigger cuts under the GOP. Bush & the GOP took 3 trillion from surplus social security - to be repaid with an IOU. Now the GOP doesn't want to repay that debt. When Reagan was elected President corporate taxes provided about 20% of Federal revenues, today its about 7%. The shift in sources of Federal taxes revenues towards the middle class and non-income tax sources is traceable and shocking.
307
The 1%, even if they spend money excessively on absurd luxuries, can't spend enough to support a consumer-based economy. Economic policies that reduce the disposable income of 99% of the population will inevitably fail when a significant segment of the population can't even afford to shop at Walmart.
8
Yet....most billionaires contributed generously to the trillion dollar "Re-elect Obama" campaign fund.
sucker.
You should learn to be cynical of mass media propaganda sources.
sucker.
You should learn to be cynical of mass media propaganda sources.
I'm right with you on this but there is another view that always worries me ... The US economy is huge, improvement seldom comes quickly. So is it possible that Dems benefit from work done by Republicans who don't stay around long enough to get the credit? I.e., it's the latency fundamental to economic policy implementations that pushes up the performance numbers for Democrats because they are generally preceded by Republicans. I hope this isn't true but it's not an unreasonable model and should be tested.
1
Facts are for those who lack imagination.
Imagine how much better America was under Reagan than it actually was. The Gipper created jobs with his own hands! Military jobs.
Yes, by eschewing revenue sources and borrowing with both hands to enrich military contractors, Reagan saved America.
Deficit spending at its most pure.
However, why rely on memory when an Alternative History Channel is ready and willing to trumpet the myth?
I would like to see David Stockmann, who was supposed to make Reagan's voodoo work, guest host the next Republican debate. He could just ask innocuous questions about real economic consequences in his nerd accountant voice, and candidates might actually break their podia into pieces and fly off into the wings like Peter Pan.
I learned a long time ago that questions that rile me up are the same ones I'm asking myself and not liking the answers.
How dare CNBC request honesty from the candidates? How will honesty make America great again?
So Bush's economic gurus inflated a bubble rather than face reality about moribund American manufacturing. So the WTC came down on his watch, and later the Dow came down just as hard. As Jeb might say, it could have happened to anybody.
And then Obama came to office in January 2009, only to find himself blamed in certain circles in February 2009 for the conditions in which he found the country. As The Onion so aptly said around that time, "Black Man Given Country's Worst Job."
America needs an intervention.
Imagine how much better America was under Reagan than it actually was. The Gipper created jobs with his own hands! Military jobs.
Yes, by eschewing revenue sources and borrowing with both hands to enrich military contractors, Reagan saved America.
Deficit spending at its most pure.
However, why rely on memory when an Alternative History Channel is ready and willing to trumpet the myth?
I would like to see David Stockmann, who was supposed to make Reagan's voodoo work, guest host the next Republican debate. He could just ask innocuous questions about real economic consequences in his nerd accountant voice, and candidates might actually break their podia into pieces and fly off into the wings like Peter Pan.
I learned a long time ago that questions that rile me up are the same ones I'm asking myself and not liking the answers.
How dare CNBC request honesty from the candidates? How will honesty make America great again?
So Bush's economic gurus inflated a bubble rather than face reality about moribund American manufacturing. So the WTC came down on his watch, and later the Dow came down just as hard. As Jeb might say, it could have happened to anybody.
And then Obama came to office in January 2009, only to find himself blamed in certain circles in February 2009 for the conditions in which he found the country. As The Onion so aptly said around that time, "Black Man Given Country's Worst Job."
America needs an intervention.
8
As a family with a fairly high income, we received a nice present courtesy of W. that lowered our taxes and left more money in our pockets to spend.
Despite his later encouragement to 'go shopping' after 9/11 to prove that the terrorists didn't win by keeping Americans from their favourite hobby, we never changed our lifestyle one bit. Ergo, that extra money W. gave us didn't create even a fraction of a job.
Nobody in other advanced country loves the tax man, yet their citizens know that taxes give them universal healthcare, free higher education, superb infrastructure, a strong safety net for the less fortunate, etc., and a healthier and longer life to boot.
Despite his later encouragement to 'go shopping' after 9/11 to prove that the terrorists didn't win by keeping Americans from their favourite hobby, we never changed our lifestyle one bit. Ergo, that extra money W. gave us didn't create even a fraction of a job.
Nobody in other advanced country loves the tax man, yet their citizens know that taxes give them universal healthcare, free higher education, superb infrastructure, a strong safety net for the less fortunate, etc., and a healthier and longer life to boot.
9
Why do all of the Republican candidates favor tax cuts for the 1%?
A big part of the answer is that they all hate Social Security and Medicare, which represent government programs that work well and are popular.
And the Republican party is bound to the dogma that big government programs can't work. They seem to worship Ayn Rand as a goddess.
Cutting taxes on the very-wealthy means increasing budget deficits, and everybody knows this, including the I'll-just-play-dumb Republicans.
But for the Republicans, tax cuts are a back door to cutting social programs, using the argument that, "Gosh, with all this budget shortfall, we just have to tighten our belts". Although what they really mean is not "our belts" but "your belts".
Of course, passing tax cuts to your wealthy donors never hurts, either...
A big part of the answer is that they all hate Social Security and Medicare, which represent government programs that work well and are popular.
And the Republican party is bound to the dogma that big government programs can't work. They seem to worship Ayn Rand as a goddess.
Cutting taxes on the very-wealthy means increasing budget deficits, and everybody knows this, including the I'll-just-play-dumb Republicans.
But for the Republicans, tax cuts are a back door to cutting social programs, using the argument that, "Gosh, with all this budget shortfall, we just have to tighten our belts". Although what they really mean is not "our belts" but "your belts".
Of course, passing tax cuts to your wealthy donors never hurts, either...
5
Another favorite tactic of the GOP candidates is to say that "Social Security is solvent for just 8 more years" while piously claiming that "We want these programs to be there for our children and grandchildren."
Journalists need to be on their game to challenge this eight year fantasy as nothing more than a justification to preserve the tax cuts for the wealthy and avoidance of any possibility that military cuts are needed.
Journalists need to be on their game to challenge this eight year fantasy as nothing more than a justification to preserve the tax cuts for the wealthy and avoidance of any possibility that military cuts are needed.
3
Why does Krugman ignore the reality that economic decisions under one administration usually take several years to express themselves? This suggests that decisions made by Democrat administrations come into effect in Republican administrations, and vice versa. As a result Clinton's "right about the record" but wrong about the cause. This causality is usually left out of the propaganda.
The national economy is like a ship laden with filled containers - turning the rudder to port does not result in an immediate hard left turn. Even Nobel prize-winning economists understand that.
The national economy is like a ship laden with filled containers - turning the rudder to port does not result in an immediate hard left turn. Even Nobel prize-winning economists understand that.
So this means that Pres. Obama is right to blame the deficit on Pres. Bush?
I do buy the lag theory. And this is one reason why I am against radical proposals from the right or the left. The pain during a prolonged lag period (I.e. From implementation to realization of the promises) would be intolerable to all but the wealthy.
Republicans never discuss how long it will take to implement their ideas and what will happen in the interim.
I do buy the lag theory. And this is one reason why I am against radical proposals from the right or the left. The pain during a prolonged lag period (I.e. From implementation to realization of the promises) would be intolerable to all but the wealthy.
Republicans never discuss how long it will take to implement their ideas and what will happen in the interim.
2
Whether Republicans give credit to, or blame, the prior administration depends wholly on who that administration was. Hence, after 9/11, I recall Republicans blaming Clinton since it was "only" 8 months since Shrub had been sworn in.
To follow up on your argument, however, Karlos, whose fault was it that the economy tanked late in Shrub's second term? Clinton's or Obama's?
To follow up on your argument, however, Karlos, whose fault was it that the economy tanked late in Shrub's second term? Clinton's or Obama's?
Every couple of generations or so the horses are able to convince the farmer that he'll so much better off if he drops the reins and lets the horses pull the plow in whatever direction they want, which is most likely toward the feed trough. And surprise surprise, the horses get fat and happy and the bankers soon show up to repossess the farm.
Two generations is about what it takes to forget the lessons of the past. I doubt this will ever change. I believe one of the things that has made the US the great country it is, is the slow but constant shifting of power between the very rich and the middle class.
Two generations is about what it takes to forget the lessons of the past. I doubt this will ever change. I believe one of the things that has made the US the great country it is, is the slow but constant shifting of power between the very rich and the middle class.
Yet nowhere is there mention of congress which is the true measure of where economic policy comes from. Presidents get on a soap box but only congress controls the laws and policies.
Let's measure that.
Let's measure that.
1
This is a classic case of cognitive dissonance, but the key to sorting it out is the 2nd amendment fanaticism on the right. Gun "enthusiasts" only care about one thing: the chance that their firearms might be regulated. Thus, ANY governmental power is resisted, no matter how unrelated. This is manipulated by the plutocracy to their benefit, and to individuals' detriment. Simple.
3
By her suggestion that Secretary Clinton fails to know how the economy works, Carly Fiorina indulges the fiction that she, herself, knows better. This would be the height of, um-m-m, irony.
Ms. Fiorina plies her arguments by tactics ranging from statistical sleight of hand to outright falsehood (e.g., her fanciful claim about women's job losses during President Obama's first term). On the economy, Ms. Fiorina meets the same standard of credibility as she does for the so-called Planned Parenthood video exposés, a standard also met by the remaining roster of GOP presidential hopefuls, with the possible exception of John Kasich.
Rogues typically accuse their opponents of behaviors that they, themselves, exhibit as standard operating procedure. The tired GOP refrain that Hillary Clinton is a "liar" (thanks for the insight, Marco Rubio) carries its own grim irony.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Ms. Fiorina plies her arguments by tactics ranging from statistical sleight of hand to outright falsehood (e.g., her fanciful claim about women's job losses during President Obama's first term). On the economy, Ms. Fiorina meets the same standard of credibility as she does for the so-called Planned Parenthood video exposés, a standard also met by the remaining roster of GOP presidential hopefuls, with the possible exception of John Kasich.
Rogues typically accuse their opponents of behaviors that they, themselves, exhibit as standard operating procedure. The tired GOP refrain that Hillary Clinton is a "liar" (thanks for the insight, Marco Rubio) carries its own grim irony.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
10
One only has to point to President Clinton's speech in 2012 at the Democratic Nominating Convention (in a rousing speech-maybe one of his best) where he made the same case; that the economy under Democrats does perform better. And he should know; his economy performed.
4
It gets even better for Democrats... Since 1929 the Democrats have done 147 times better that the Republicans! that is an annual return of 10% under the Democratic Administrations (40 years) and .04% annually under the Republicans(36 years).
It really is simple to explain. It has to do with Income Inequity and the Velocity of Money..... Under the Republicans, wealth shifts to their benefactors the Conservative Ultra Wealthy (CUWs)3% and the velocity of money slows down as the average American has little to spend. Under the Democratic Administrations the wealth shifts more to the 97% and the average American has more money to spend an the velocity of money increases and that improves the economy and the Stock Market returns..
It really is simple to explain. It has to do with Income Inequity and the Velocity of Money..... Under the Republicans, wealth shifts to their benefactors the Conservative Ultra Wealthy (CUWs)3% and the velocity of money slows down as the average American has little to spend. Under the Democratic Administrations the wealth shifts more to the 97% and the average American has more money to spend an the velocity of money increases and that improves the economy and the Stock Market returns..
5
It's really quite simple from this layman's vantage. Spreading the wealth creates healthy, socially sustainable businesses and societies. Kings keep the peons poor. Republicans are kingmakers - BIG winners and losers. BIG GREEDY, SOCIALLY UNCONSCIOUS WINNERS are bad for everyone else on the planet. There is a reason the French beheaded ALL royalty and their followers. The head on the ALEC/Koch brothers/Wall Street/u.s.chamber of commerce/radical religious right/nra/major media corporate conglomerate has gotten obscenely huge and it's time to cut the snake down to size.
4
Starting with Nixon's "southern strategy", the GOP took every opportunity to slowly defund those agencies put in place by Democratic administrations, amongst which was the Department of Education. This has finally resulted in an uneducated and uninformed electorate which believes the lies and propaganda spewed daily by the GOP and their media.P.T.Barnum was right; you can fool some of the people some of the time but the GOP are continuing their quest to fool most of the people most of the time.
3
Evaporation cycle economics Republican style dries up the resources and money from the US and rains money into offshore jobs and bank accounts, leaving a drought or even desert behind. Democrats would seed the clouds with money collected from the wealthy and hope that enough of it would precipitate the US economy towards sustained growth.
1
Facts matter only to people who value facts that matter.
Let's face it. The American electorate is a bell curve in which the majority of potential voters are willfully uninformed and uninterested in policy discussion. For them, politics is a reality show played by bombastic amateurs with whom the audience can identify and narrated by pundits who focus on performance reviews tailored to the ideological expectations of their sponsors.
They don't need no stinkin' facts.
Let's face it. The American electorate is a bell curve in which the majority of potential voters are willfully uninformed and uninterested in policy discussion. For them, politics is a reality show played by bombastic amateurs with whom the audience can identify and narrated by pundits who focus on performance reviews tailored to the ideological expectations of their sponsors.
They don't need no stinkin' facts.
2
Whoever follows any of the serious work written during the last four decades knows what is serious knowledge and what is voodoo economics. However, in spite of the Great Recession, the right wing continues to carry the flags of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman and the ultra rich continue financing campaigns that will propose to almost completely eliminate the meager taxes that they pay. Too much propaganda and advertising, and too little information around those quarters.
The last liberal residing in the White House balanced the budget. Something no GOP president has done since Nixon. The deficits we have now are directly attributed to the wars and policies unpaid for by one George W. Bush.
The key measure you want to look at is the ratio of debt to GDP, which measures the government’s fiscal position better than a simple dollar number. And if you look at United States history since World War II, you find that of the 10 presidents who preceded Obama, seven left office with a debt ratio lower than when they came in. Who were the three exceptions? Ronald Reagan and the two George Bushes.
The key measure you want to look at is the ratio of debt to GDP, which measures the government’s fiscal position better than a simple dollar number. And if you look at United States history since World War II, you find that of the 10 presidents who preceded Obama, seven left office with a debt ratio lower than when they came in. Who were the three exceptions? Ronald Reagan and the two George Bushes.
4
Nice find; 1st class summary of the find, Dr. Krugman.
I wish very many more progressive Democrats and 3rd party progressive candidates this election season would learn these facts and work them into their stump speeches and position papers to better educate the electorate still functioning at the 7th grade level intellectually. May the #1 Dem candidate that does so be Bernie Sanders. May the progressive candidates include those in "my" Green Party" -- running in state and federal elections -- all having the intelligence level sufficient to avoid resorting to merely bashing Obama and decrying US endless wars abroad as our self-defeating political strategy that is certain to NOT persuade the educated electorate to elect any one of our amazingly unqualified partisan Green Party candidates for President this season. But this advice and admonition also applies to our candidates for Congress and for some state legislatures. Bernie Sanders will need those wiser progressive people in place in Congress and 1+ state legislatures once he's taken the oath of office Jan 2017. I hope we Greens have some really smart, less partisan, candidates that get thru the 2016 primaries and win in November 2016 using facts like you, Dr. K., Dr. Robert Reich and Dr. Paul Stiglitz have been providing.
I wish very many more progressive Democrats and 3rd party progressive candidates this election season would learn these facts and work them into their stump speeches and position papers to better educate the electorate still functioning at the 7th grade level intellectually. May the #1 Dem candidate that does so be Bernie Sanders. May the progressive candidates include those in "my" Green Party" -- running in state and federal elections -- all having the intelligence level sufficient to avoid resorting to merely bashing Obama and decrying US endless wars abroad as our self-defeating political strategy that is certain to NOT persuade the educated electorate to elect any one of our amazingly unqualified partisan Green Party candidates for President this season. But this advice and admonition also applies to our candidates for Congress and for some state legislatures. Bernie Sanders will need those wiser progressive people in place in Congress and 1+ state legislatures once he's taken the oath of office Jan 2017. I hope we Greens have some really smart, less partisan, candidates that get thru the 2016 primaries and win in November 2016 using facts like you, Dr. K., Dr. Robert Reich and Dr. Paul Stiglitz have been providing.
2
The economic "plans" of the republicans have only one goal. Tax cuts for the .1 of the 1 percent.
With Citizens United we see them buying Congress.
Inequality is approaching record highs.
Income and wealth flow to the .1 of the 1 percent.
These are what the data show.
Job growth and the general welfare are simply not the concern of the republiclowns.
That is why the republiclown debates resemble a circus side show.
With Citizens United we see them buying Congress.
Inequality is approaching record highs.
Income and wealth flow to the .1 of the 1 percent.
These are what the data show.
Job growth and the general welfare are simply not the concern of the republiclowns.
That is why the republiclown debates resemble a circus side show.
I'm not sure how anyone with a conscious could repeatedly praise job growth under Obama without discussing the quality of the jobs or the numerous, arguably catastrophic, ways that they are counted. As far as I know the only one doing this on a consistent basis with a degree of true objectivity is David Stockman.
Beyond that common sense dictates that comparing how the economy has done under Democratic or Republican presidents as a validation of economic theory is so limiting as to be juvenile.
Beyond that common sense dictates that comparing how the economy has done under Democratic or Republican presidents as a validation of economic theory is so limiting as to be juvenile.
Perhaps the answer to the question of why the economy does markedly better under Democrats is because they always follow a Republican regime that did damage to the overall economy while making the 1% more prosperous. So, perhaps, the question ought not to be why the economy is so good under Democrats, but why it performs so poorly under Republicans.
1
If Mitt Romney had won the 2012 presidential campaign there is no doubt that with no changes what so ever the growth in the economy and the reduction in in debt and government employment would be lauded as effective Republican governance. Carly Fiorina was quick to take credit where no credit was due and would deny it was her fault when things went badly. Its the reason she was fired. Its the reason why Republicans should remain fired.
1
Given the uncertainty uncovered by the research, it would seem that voters shouldn't believe ANY growth claims from either party. If a candidate wants to run with a tax policy change, I want to hear about the effects on fiscal policy, i.e. deficits, and inequality. That's how tax policy should be judged, and let the chips fall where they may in the broader economy.
1
Is the Reblican plan to default on the debt they owe to the Social Security Trust Fund as a means of balancing the budget? Since income taxes don't fund social security, how can they lower income taxes and make up the difference by cutting social security benefits? Is this another case of their lack of understanding how government finances work?
2
Why does Carly Fiorina constantly lie? I can understand differences of opinion but the candidates for the highest office in the land keep lying to us. Carson denies he made money from a vitamin company when he did represent the company. Trump lies to a question about Rubio and accuses all Mexicans to be rapists. I wish we had better candidates for president.
4
"I wish we had better candidates for president."
*We* do. It's the Republicans that don't.
*We* do. It's the Republicans that don't.
Because she is a liar and she says whatever she thinks will help her in the polls including outright lies and of course the vivid abortion fantasies that she likes to create for more sensational impact. She is scary to watch as are all the other GOP contenders.
most pols lie. smart ones only lie when they have to. this is a period when D's have mostly good facts and GOPers poor ones.
So GOPers lie more- and intimidate the Press into "he said she said", instead of sorting out facts from lies.
e.g. Cheney-Bush handed Obama two failed elective wars (un)paid for y tax cuts (mostly) for the rich- and the Second Great Depression. Instead of recanting and pulling an oar, they loudly, proudly announced a campaign of "obstruction and NO!"
Obama, notwithstanding, converted the depression into recession. We have come back faster than most depressions in history, despite GOP intransigence.
Now GOPers, like Donnie Frump, scream about how the GOP must lead us out of deprived Obamaland. And no one, including pundits, remind us of "obstruction and NO!". so much for the so-called "liberal" press. more likely "intimidated press".
So GOPers lie more- and intimidate the Press into "he said she said", instead of sorting out facts from lies.
e.g. Cheney-Bush handed Obama two failed elective wars (un)paid for y tax cuts (mostly) for the rich- and the Second Great Depression. Instead of recanting and pulling an oar, they loudly, proudly announced a campaign of "obstruction and NO!"
Obama, notwithstanding, converted the depression into recession. We have come back faster than most depressions in history, despite GOP intransigence.
Now GOPers, like Donnie Frump, scream about how the GOP must lead us out of deprived Obamaland. And no one, including pundits, remind us of "obstruction and NO!". so much for the so-called "liberal" press. more likely "intimidated press".
2
A pox on both of their houses, but to say I'm not shocked to hear Professor Krugman find in favor of his handlers in the barely bigger-spending party is to say the sun will rise on the days when he endorses the worst measures of profligate government spending. I feel confident that he would endorse Bernie Sanders--if his Democrat Party handlers allow him to endorse a candidate--who has proposed enough government spending to reduce taxpayers to slaves.
Really, Ned - look at all the miserable slaves in Scandinavia, France, Germany, etc. Oh, the horror!!!!!
The wealth gap today is larger than at any time in our history, larger than during the Gilded Age or the Roaring Twenties. Our middle class is on the ropes. After Dodd-Frank, the too-big-to-fail banks have gotten even bigger while our community banks and credit unions have closed down and been replaced by JPMorgan Chase and Citibank in our hometowns.
Don't fall into the partisanship trap. Both parties are ruled by the same plutocrats. Lloyd Blankfein loves Obama. So does Jamie Dimon. They both became billionaires under his administration. Obama promised hope and change but continued the Bush agenda. Our military is in Syria, back in Iraq and on the borders of Russia provoking war. Our navy is provoking the Chinese on the Chinese coastline. The media fans the flames of war for issues on the other side of the planet that should not be our concern while our children can't find middle class jobs at home. These are dangerous times for all of us, our families and our country.
The plutocracy is running a game on us. They use partisanship to divide us from our neighbors, family and countrymen while controlling both sides. They control the monetary system, which is the source of their power over us: bit.ly/1MrTmro
Don't fall into the partisanship trap. Both parties are ruled by the same plutocrats. Lloyd Blankfein loves Obama. So does Jamie Dimon. They both became billionaires under his administration. Obama promised hope and change but continued the Bush agenda. Our military is in Syria, back in Iraq and on the borders of Russia provoking war. Our navy is provoking the Chinese on the Chinese coastline. The media fans the flames of war for issues on the other side of the planet that should not be our concern while our children can't find middle class jobs at home. These are dangerous times for all of us, our families and our country.
The plutocracy is running a game on us. They use partisanship to divide us from our neighbors, family and countrymen while controlling both sides. They control the monetary system, which is the source of their power over us: bit.ly/1MrTmro
4
Actually, the Modern Money Theory (MMT) claims to know exactly why economic growth occurs when it does. The data show a direct correlation of government debt and economic expansion.
The proponents of the theory---located at Univ. of MO, Kansas City---provide a series of power point presentations on the topic. Slide #46 in this presentation shows how direct the correlation is. http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/its-what-you-know-for-sure-that-jus...
The proponents of the theory---located at Univ. of MO, Kansas City---provide a series of power point presentations on the topic. Slide #46 in this presentation shows how direct the correlation is. http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/its-what-you-know-for-sure-that-jus...
I don't know what the great mystery is here. The Democrats have shown themselves to be fiscally responsible ands the Republicans have not. Republicans talk the talk but do not walk the walk as they say.
For example, when Bush started the Iraq War what did he do that no president in history did before him when preparing for war? He cut taxes. Is it any wonder the deficit exploded.
As a matter of fact has it not been a central tenet of conservative political philosophy "to starve the beast" as they put it? In other words a broke government is better than a solvent one.
As far as why the economy does better under Democrats, I suspect it is because markets prefer a strong solvent government to a weak, indebted one. I also suspect that a strong solvent government benefits everyone from large corporations to small sub S corps. It is really no mystery at all why the economy does better under Democrats.
For example, when Bush started the Iraq War what did he do that no president in history did before him when preparing for war? He cut taxes. Is it any wonder the deficit exploded.
As a matter of fact has it not been a central tenet of conservative political philosophy "to starve the beast" as they put it? In other words a broke government is better than a solvent one.
As far as why the economy does better under Democrats, I suspect it is because markets prefer a strong solvent government to a weak, indebted one. I also suspect that a strong solvent government benefits everyone from large corporations to small sub S corps. It is really no mystery at all why the economy does better under Democrats.
226
Tell that to the folks in Detroit and Chicago and about 20 other big cities that have enjoyed Liberal governance for decades and are currently teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, have the highest murder and crime rates, worst performing schools, higher drop out rates, most people living below the poverty line, unaffordable housing, highest tax rates, etc....
The idea that people often vote against their own interests is wrong.
In key elections in the past five decades, the majority of voters went for the Democratic party candidate. Gerrymandered, unbalanced districts nevertheless gave the victory to the Republicans.
There was one exception. In 2000, the Democratic presidential candidate won the election. The Republican party used their representatives on the Supreme Court to overthrow the votes. A re-count by the top news organizations including the NYTimes confirmed this.
The basic problem is that the Democrats refuse to fight. The Democratic candidate and party in 2000 said virtually nothing when the election was stolen by the Supreme Court. The redistricting that packs blue voters into small districts and allows red victories by tiny margins in the many other districts is never attacked. Here in California the change was made by a voter initiative, not by the Democratic party.
The Democrats are comfortable being number two. The only candidate who wants to change anything significant is Bernie Sanders. Clinton doesn't even say that low capital gains taxes are unfair and zero inheritance taxes for the rich are letting them buy the government.
To see what we should do go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). Then send a buck to Bernie and invite me to speak to your group. Thanks.
In key elections in the past five decades, the majority of voters went for the Democratic party candidate. Gerrymandered, unbalanced districts nevertheless gave the victory to the Republicans.
There was one exception. In 2000, the Democratic presidential candidate won the election. The Republican party used their representatives on the Supreme Court to overthrow the votes. A re-count by the top news organizations including the NYTimes confirmed this.
The basic problem is that the Democrats refuse to fight. The Democratic candidate and party in 2000 said virtually nothing when the election was stolen by the Supreme Court. The redistricting that packs blue voters into small districts and allows red victories by tiny margins in the many other districts is never attacked. Here in California the change was made by a voter initiative, not by the Democratic party.
The Democrats are comfortable being number two. The only candidate who wants to change anything significant is Bernie Sanders. Clinton doesn't even say that low capital gains taxes are unfair and zero inheritance taxes for the rich are letting them buy the government.
To see what we should do go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). Then send a buck to Bernie and invite me to speak to your group. Thanks.
4
An a non-economist, I have a question. If the economy is awash in cash, which it would seem to be with interest rates at near zero, how would a huge tax cut for the 1 percent help produce economic growth? Wouldn't that just dump more cash into a domestic economy that already has too much uninvested capital? Wouldn't there be a greater danger the money would be invested overseas or in a bout of mergers and acquisitions that would do little for the broader economy other than probably cost many jobs? Could someone pose that question at the next debate, even at the risk candidates would decry it as "gotcha" journalism?
5
A simple thing to point out is that reporting republican's plans as a simple tax cut is shady journalism. Question to ask is why democrats are interested in keeping complicated tax laws on the books and are opposed to simple flat rate plan that many republicans are proposing. I can think of a few reasons. It collects more tax from their corporate cronies as they won't be able to hide behind loopholes that they can come up with by hiring expensive attorneys. Also it would reduce the budget of IRS substantially, resulting. In less government control.
How about asking the democrats what they mean by fair share and how it would address the deficit and the debt which is now 100percent of GDP.
How about asking the democrats what they mean by fair share and how it would address the deficit and the debt which is now 100percent of GDP.
1
A very rich philanthropist in New York once said that money is like manure. It doesn't do any good unless it is spread around (my apologies to this great lady for a misquote). I believe that "Thisand That" is exactly correct.
People seem tethered to an economic model without regard for the factual record. One comment suggests market and economic improvement under Democrats is "dumb luck." Politics aside, when Bush left office, my house and retirement fund had lost a third of their value. Today, after Obama, both are worth more than ever. Today, I can afford to retire and, perhaps, read up on economic theory.
6
If you look at this issue from a conservative-liberal divide, it makes more sense.
Since 1877 (when the then relatively liberal Republicans sold out African Americans to hold on to the presidency and shut down Reconstruction), all the former slave states have been consistently politically, economically and socially conservative. And they have been consistently in the bottom half (more often the bottom quarter) of the 50 states.
The consistently lead the nation in bad education, lack of health care, low economic opportunity. They consistently lead the nation from the bottom in the ultimate test of government impact, longevity.
It's not even close.
There are states that are today conservative (e.g., Idaho), but few that have been consistently conservative in all realms like the former slave states (although you could add in Oklahoma). Much of the upper Midwest once led the nation in Progressive policies and still retain that influence in education and government policies. But the former slave states have been non-stop small government, low taxes, less opportunity strongholds for a century and a half.
When they take the presidency thatbisnwhere the year tend to go for economic models. No wonder in modern presidencies the Democrats do better.
Since 1877 (when the then relatively liberal Republicans sold out African Americans to hold on to the presidency and shut down Reconstruction), all the former slave states have been consistently politically, economically and socially conservative. And they have been consistently in the bottom half (more often the bottom quarter) of the 50 states.
The consistently lead the nation in bad education, lack of health care, low economic opportunity. They consistently lead the nation from the bottom in the ultimate test of government impact, longevity.
It's not even close.
There are states that are today conservative (e.g., Idaho), but few that have been consistently conservative in all realms like the former slave states (although you could add in Oklahoma). Much of the upper Midwest once led the nation in Progressive policies and still retain that influence in education and government policies. But the former slave states have been non-stop small government, low taxes, less opportunity strongholds for a century and a half.
When they take the presidency thatbisnwhere the year tend to go for economic models. No wonder in modern presidencies the Democrats do better.
5
In your columns today, you and Mr. Blow share a focus on media bias (yours is a bit less direct). Much has and will be said, but given that broadcast media sometimes use print media as points of reference and discussion, why doesn't the NYT during this election cycle publish an ongoing structured critique of each candidate's past and proposed policy, relevant prior professional and personal experiences, validity or truthfulness of asserted results of past performance, reasonable likelihood of realization of claimed success of present and future performance, and truthfulness of asserted "facts" of their own and others' performances and positions? Not only would this offer broadcast media relevant material for aired questions and discussions, it would become the default record of reference for this and other election cycles. Of course, the published material would need to be as accurate as possible. Many readers and consumers of election information amass that information from a variety of sources that may be biased or offer false or incomplete coverage. Given all the coverage in the NYT that essentially every one of the 2016 presidential candidates has received thus far. I'm convinced that that a concise and well-structured weekly supplement would be reasonably easy to assemble, constructive and well received. Issue the election supplement on Saturdays in time to inform us, the Sunday talk shows and their guests.
I think the GOP's real appeal to the 1% is largely narrowcast to the 1% and this allows them to pay for the broadcast of their rhetorical appeal to the voters they will need to win office. The open economic positions are made to give voters that primarily care about their social positions something to hang onto. They won't scrutinize them too closely since their candidates are on the right side of the social issues which are most important to them. Many believe that once the social issues are properly sorted the economics will fall into line anyway.
lff
lff
Republican administrations have only provided the illusion of prosperity, due to deficit spending. It is ironic that the party that insists that the national debt will "debase the dollar" and cause runaway inflation is responsible for virtually all of the run-up in national debt.
If you calculate the national debt from 1980 to the present, including that from January to September of a new president's first term he is working on the budget of his predecessor, about 12 of the 17 trillion of debt was run up by Republican presidents. It was an even more striking statistic without Obama, but he was left with an economy in free fall.
So I can provide the illusion of prosperity by spending more than I make and putting it on my credit card. Everyone will think that I am a financial genius, living like that on my salary. And the kids get used to having anything they want, without considering whether we can afford it.
So a Republican can credibly say that they will provide a high standard of living and cut taxes at the same time, which they will. By running up the VISA bill. And, when a Dem is in office, the same Republicans will wave the VISA bills and say "How can you sit there and spend like that? Just look at your credit card bills! They are ruining us!"
If you calculate the national debt from 1980 to the present, including that from January to September of a new president's first term he is working on the budget of his predecessor, about 12 of the 17 trillion of debt was run up by Republican presidents. It was an even more striking statistic without Obama, but he was left with an economy in free fall.
So I can provide the illusion of prosperity by spending more than I make and putting it on my credit card. Everyone will think that I am a financial genius, living like that on my salary. And the kids get used to having anything they want, without considering whether we can afford it.
So a Republican can credibly say that they will provide a high standard of living and cut taxes at the same time, which they will. By running up the VISA bill. And, when a Dem is in office, the same Republicans will wave the VISA bills and say "How can you sit there and spend like that? Just look at your credit card bills! They are ruining us!"
5
You have hit the nail on the head. This is what all the vaunted recent R presidents have done. Same thing here in New Jersey: Tom Kean, Christie Todd Whitman, and now Christie. They are the ones who don't pay the pension bills, ignored the transit fund etc. and leave a mess for the next D governor to clean up. Poor Jim Florio, forever blamed for having to raise taxes to get out of the hole Tom Kean left...
1
Possible reason Democrats do better than Republicans on the economy: Under Democrats, more income (including help for lower income people) flows to those who spend most, all or more than they earn. Consumption fuels economic growth. Under Republicans, upper income people get more, which they invest rather than spend more on consumer goods that propel economic growth. Also, maybe people just feel more secure when Democrats are running the show and are thus more inclined to splurge.
1
When Spiro Agnew initiated the modern era of Republican attacks on media there was an implicit threat to the television networks that their broadcast license could be at risk. We live in a different era now with unregulated cable news and the Fairness Doctrine a distant memory.
So why is this strategy still effective? First, because there is a grain of truth in the accusation that television journalists are a self-improtant lot. Political campaign stories are made and reinforced on television. As Ron Suskind has shown, political campaigns see longer-form journalism as territory for the historians. Fox News recognizes this (It was Roger Ailes after all, who advised Nixon and Agnew) and their anchors exude a less "elite" persona.
The candidates need only survive a short cycle of television attention—and pugnacity is the default mode here for success. Those who don't do this well are beginning to fall off. Those who do it well and have no other leg to stand on are still in the race. This is the standard for political campaign PR today. It makes many of us scratch our heads and wonder how such nonsense can be talked about as serious policy. There has to be something else at work.
I would suggest that Agnew's method is still in play—that there is still an economic threat backing up the attacks. Why else would Fox news have been able to avoid these attacks and still ask pressing questions? Maybe Dr. Krugman can get at some of the underlying economics at work here.
So why is this strategy still effective? First, because there is a grain of truth in the accusation that television journalists are a self-improtant lot. Political campaign stories are made and reinforced on television. As Ron Suskind has shown, political campaigns see longer-form journalism as territory for the historians. Fox News recognizes this (It was Roger Ailes after all, who advised Nixon and Agnew) and their anchors exude a less "elite" persona.
The candidates need only survive a short cycle of television attention—and pugnacity is the default mode here for success. Those who don't do this well are beginning to fall off. Those who do it well and have no other leg to stand on are still in the race. This is the standard for political campaign PR today. It makes many of us scratch our heads and wonder how such nonsense can be talked about as serious policy. There has to be something else at work.
I would suggest that Agnew's method is still in play—that there is still an economic threat backing up the attacks. Why else would Fox news have been able to avoid these attacks and still ask pressing questions? Maybe Dr. Krugman can get at some of the underlying economics at work here.
From Tim Kane below:
"We entered into supply side policy era in 1980. In 1997 we hit the saturation point but kept going (intensifying even) which lead to 2008 collapse. It's 2015 and still no demand side bias policy shifts!".
I remember a very wise friend commenting, in 1997 after repeal of Glass/Steagall, : "The banks will go on a 20 year gambling spree and we will all lose."
He was wrong: it was less than ten years.
I was living in Arizona in mid-2000s and can report that the housing crisis was well underway in AZ and NV by late 2005.
2006 was a mid-term election year and it seemed to many of us in AZ that "someone" put out the word to not use the "R" word until after Nov elections. Perhaps if bankers and potential home-buyers had some warning, the "crash" may have been more a soft-landing.
The other point regarding tax policy effects on consumption: When 80% of us have more disposable income at the end of the month, the portfolios of the other 20% will benefit. The 80% don't hide their taxable income in out-of-reach investment plans and overseas accounts. They BUY things they need, and hopefully a few things they just want, including travel and entertainment.
"We entered into supply side policy era in 1980. In 1997 we hit the saturation point but kept going (intensifying even) which lead to 2008 collapse. It's 2015 and still no demand side bias policy shifts!".
I remember a very wise friend commenting, in 1997 after repeal of Glass/Steagall, : "The banks will go on a 20 year gambling spree and we will all lose."
He was wrong: it was less than ten years.
I was living in Arizona in mid-2000s and can report that the housing crisis was well underway in AZ and NV by late 2005.
2006 was a mid-term election year and it seemed to many of us in AZ that "someone" put out the word to not use the "R" word until after Nov elections. Perhaps if bankers and potential home-buyers had some warning, the "crash" may have been more a soft-landing.
The other point regarding tax policy effects on consumption: When 80% of us have more disposable income at the end of the month, the portfolios of the other 20% will benefit. The 80% don't hide their taxable income in out-of-reach investment plans and overseas accounts. They BUY things they need, and hopefully a few things they just want, including travel and entertainment.
2
For entertainment, I often read the comments that discuss the endless drumbeat of economic articles in the Wall Street Journal. The common refrain is that high taxes on the rich punish them for success. Capital gains taxes are double taxation (if I buy a stock at price A and sell at price B, I get all of the gain, not the corporation I own shares in), the rich pay most of the taxes, and the rest of us are the moochers. They conflate Democrat with Socialist or Marxist or Statist, then bloviate on how government should get out of the way of their businesses. I am reminded of the days when we had that kind of libertarian government. We had bad food and medicine, dirty air and water, quackery, and robber barons. Trying to get a Republican to learn from history is fruitless. Fox News has brainwashed them all, and the WSJ parrots their memes.
4
Few people read comments. But I still want to respond to today's column. Thank you in advance for hearing me out.
Isn't the answer to why the economy has grown under Democrats more than Republicans somewhat obvious? Government spending boosts short-term growth.
Democratic Administrations from FDR forward have reliably increased governmental spending. This excess spending has lead to artificially boosted short-term economic growth, hence today's piece by PK.
Of course this extra spending also leads to higher public debt and/or expectations of higher taxes. High and increasing public is globally associated with long term slowdown in economic growth. (E.g., Japan c. 1990-2015, or EU, or China post-2008). And doesn't this fact also explain why Democrats are less proud of their ability to achieve growth?
Bernie Sanders gets this: We need to beyond conventional Democratic economics.
Mr. Krugman, who is as smart as they come, somehow forgot to consider the short term boost of governmental spending, and its long term harm. Let's hope he incorporates this into his future pieces.
.
Isn't the answer to why the economy has grown under Democrats more than Republicans somewhat obvious? Government spending boosts short-term growth.
Democratic Administrations from FDR forward have reliably increased governmental spending. This excess spending has lead to artificially boosted short-term economic growth, hence today's piece by PK.
Of course this extra spending also leads to higher public debt and/or expectations of higher taxes. High and increasing public is globally associated with long term slowdown in economic growth. (E.g., Japan c. 1990-2015, or EU, or China post-2008). And doesn't this fact also explain why Democrats are less proud of their ability to achieve growth?
Bernie Sanders gets this: We need to beyond conventional Democratic economics.
Mr. Krugman, who is as smart as they come, somehow forgot to consider the short term boost of governmental spending, and its long term harm. Let's hope he incorporates this into his future pieces.
.
2
"This excess spending has lead to artificially boosted short-term economic growth, hence today's piece by PK."
Define "artificial" as it pertains to economics.
"Mr. Krugman, who is as smart as they come, somehow forgot to consider the short term boost of governmental spending, and its long term harm."
What long-term harm?
Define "artificial" as it pertains to economics.
"Mr. Krugman, who is as smart as they come, somehow forgot to consider the short term boost of governmental spending, and its long term harm."
What long-term harm?
1
So the deficit has come down very significantly under Obama. You deal with fox reality. Spending usually goes up under republicans but it goes to the rich and for wars.
It is even more interesting to think about the relative performance of post war presidents in terms of their approach to fiscal and monetary policy. What I see is that the president's who encourage the most conventional Keynesian policies - counter cyclical fiscal and monetary policies - are the most successful. That's true even for Reagan. His economic policies were pure Keynes. They were military Keynesian policies, but they were pure Keynes.
And that's why the current iteration of the GOP this election cycle is so darned scary. As a group, the GOP candidates' total lack of knowledge of what works and doesn't work for a modern industrial economy is astounding. Ben Carson wants to base his economic policy on the Bible! Rand Paul wants to go back to the gold standard! Donald Trump...well, he just cribs his policy from Jeb(!) while doubling his numbers with magic asterisks! With candidates and ideas like these, putting the GOP in its current state in charge of the U.S. economy makes no more sense then putting arsonists in charge of a fire department.
And that's why the current iteration of the GOP this election cycle is so darned scary. As a group, the GOP candidates' total lack of knowledge of what works and doesn't work for a modern industrial economy is astounding. Ben Carson wants to base his economic policy on the Bible! Rand Paul wants to go back to the gold standard! Donald Trump...well, he just cribs his policy from Jeb(!) while doubling his numbers with magic asterisks! With candidates and ideas like these, putting the GOP in its current state in charge of the U.S. economy makes no more sense then putting arsonists in charge of a fire department.
2
All Republicans aren't wrong: a continuation:
"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."
-Abraham Lincoln
"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."
-Abraham Lincoln
9
I know very little about economics, but I think there is this possibility: When more purchasing power is put on the hands of people who must spend it, they do spend it. So the money moves faster and there is more need for the goods and services needed at the lower end of the wealth distribution, simply because many more people are able to buy them.
On the contrary, when purchasing power is increased for those who have already great wealth, they either spend it on things like more vacation homes (which may help the economy of Minorca but not Peoria) or park it in offshore accounts.
The "supply-side" deep voodoo (thank you, Dr. Krugman!) seems to be based on this: The poor won't work if they have too much money, and the rich won't work if they have too little. Even a billionaire must know that if his potential customers can't afford to buy what he produces, he will fail.
On the contrary, when purchasing power is increased for those who have already great wealth, they either spend it on things like more vacation homes (which may help the economy of Minorca but not Peoria) or park it in offshore accounts.
The "supply-side" deep voodoo (thank you, Dr. Krugman!) seems to be based on this: The poor won't work if they have too much money, and the rich won't work if they have too little. Even a billionaire must know that if his potential customers can't afford to buy what he produces, he will fail.
7
Given the 60+ year time frame for the economic analysis, its hard, very hard, to ascribe this out-performance to 'Luck". Could it be that Democratic economic policies result in a more equitable distribution of economic gains, allowing the middle-class consumers to spend their wages obtained through full employment at decent, if not good wage levels?
These type of results are the economic facts Democrats should run on and let the Republicans continue to live in their fantasy world of "trickle down".
These type of results are the economic facts Democrats should run on and let the Republicans continue to live in their fantasy world of "trickle down".
2
Republicans routinely say the opposite of what they mean. I think it is a defensive strategy practiced by people who perceive themselves surrounded by enemies. Their friends and cohorts presumably know the truth; enemies deserve to be deceived.
The Iraqis did it, too. They told the U.S. occupiers what they wanted to hear.
I don't think it's considered lying when the object is self-defense.
The question is why Republicans are in a defensive mode. And the answer is that having proved incompetent, they have no alternative. Making friends with accumulators is their only prospect for getting ahead.
The Iraqis did it, too. They told the U.S. occupiers what they wanted to hear.
I don't think it's considered lying when the object is self-defense.
The question is why Republicans are in a defensive mode. And the answer is that having proved incompetent, they have no alternative. Making friends with accumulators is their only prospect for getting ahead.
2
The curtain has come down on WW 2. Neither party can do much about GDP numbers, or income levels we pursue. My take is, social program spending the Democrats usually undertake, pump's up the economy. Good example I experienced, was LBJ's Great Society spending.
1
All of us are transient custodians, both our own lives and as important those who we create to follow us. but it appears that many, not just so called conservatives, live in the present with no thought of the past and little concern for the future.
There may be no greater physical satisfaction than the climax of love, but the consequence of this act often brings children who must be cared for or we should simply stop having them.
Children are the responsibility we cannot avoid and parents are the ones we shouldn't.
There may be no greater physical satisfaction than the climax of love, but the consequence of this act often brings children who must be cared for or we should simply stop having them.
Children are the responsibility we cannot avoid and parents are the ones we shouldn't.
The Democrat party is the party that campaigns that they will never cut Social Security benefits. Well, this recent budget deal that Obama praises has done just that by eliminating the file and suspend and restricted application claiming strategies. That will cost my wife and I about $40,000 in lifetime benefits. Several of the Republicans tell us that Social Security benefits have to be cut to provide for the long-term stability of the program. At least they are honest. They Democrats tell us they won't cut Social Security and then vote to do precisely that. They lie through their teeth.
2
Some truth to that but republicans don't want to cut social security, they want to eliminate it. Be careful who you vote for, they might do just that.
If you could take into account the effect of policies left over from the previous administration on the following one would the impact of Democratic presidents on economic growth be even greater than that of Republican ones? And could the difference be due to the tendency for people to spend, and those who spend getting more funds, with a Democrat than with a Republican? According to both, progressives spend more than conservatives.
2
Would be credible if you can provide a morsel of facts. This is economics, not the best area for wishful fantasy or partisan pontification.
The GOP has many single-issue voters. We know the issues from guns to abortion to taxes. I have decided to also be a single-issue voter. If the candidate is against Planned Parenthood or a woman's right to choose or reducing college loan costs or evolution or global warming or requiring vaccinations or in favor of cutting taxes while reducing medicare or social security then I don't vote for him/her. When you combine many or all of the above there is no chance in hell of voting for such ridiculous candidates. And, amazing - they are all Republicans. It is terribly disturbing that the single-issue voters of the Republican party fail to see the harm their vote for guns and pro-life cause as they ignore so many crucial issues - from their own financial security to a livable planet for their children ....
6
There are so many Democrats who are one issue voters that they are willing to admit that they will vote for Hillary, despite all of her lies, despite the fact that she has been bought and paid for by Wall Street, despite her votes in favor of the Iraq war, despite her support for job-killing trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA and GATT. The one issue Democrats most care about is who can appoint the next few Supreme Court justices. Democrats will vote for all the warts, all the lies, all the sellouts to Wall Street, just for one issue, the Supreme Court. So why shouldn't a Republican do the same?
The major impact of a President's policies are not felt until after they leave office.
The economy is a large ocean tanker and it takes quite some time to turn.
For example, Ronald Reagan's major policy initiatives likely affected the economy of Bush and Clinton more than his own as changes take a while to kick in.
So, perhaps what is going on is the Repunlicans put in place policies that promote growth, the Democrats come in, enjoy the ride and then screw things up again for subsequent Republican administrations try to fix.
The economy is a large ocean tanker and it takes quite some time to turn.
For example, Ronald Reagan's major policy initiatives likely affected the economy of Bush and Clinton more than his own as changes take a while to kick in.
So, perhaps what is going on is the Repunlicans put in place policies that promote growth, the Democrats come in, enjoy the ride and then screw things up again for subsequent Republican administrations try to fix.
3
The reason why that isn't true is that the numbers don't add up and there is data to prove it. It's not possible to cut taxes for the wealthy and increase the amount of money we take in at the same time. If I have five oranges and give two to my neighbor, that leaves me with three oranges. Hoping that he will buy more lemonade at my lemonade stand and it will make up for my deficit of oranges is magical thinking.
3
This explains the deficit left by Pres. Bush for Pres. Obama.
So, by your logic, we should elect Republican Presidents to get better results in the following years when we have a Democratic President. If that is so, it would be nice to hear it from your candidates. No ?
If we accept the Republican assertions that their tax policies, their elimination of regulations, and the interest rate policies that they promote lead to faster economic growth, we are left with a startling conclusion: God just likes Democrats in the White House better.
Obviously, this "creationist economics" has been unfairly shunted by the ideologically rigid university system; we need to require that "mainstream" economics be presented as only a theory (hypothesis, really, but let's keep it simple ...), and creationist economics taught alongside it.
Obviously, this "creationist economics" has been unfairly shunted by the ideologically rigid university system; we need to require that "mainstream" economics be presented as only a theory (hypothesis, really, but let's keep it simple ...), and creationist economics taught alongside it.
2
Very good analysis, PK.
The impact a president can have on economic issues varies depending on the party splits in Congress. A president from one party facing a congress controlled by the other party will probably get less done. On the other hand doing less may be better than doing more. Many economic trends emerge which have little to do with government policies, and it is often difficult to measure the impact of government policies.
One thing seems clear, however, which is that Carly Fiorino doers not have the answers.
The impact a president can have on economic issues varies depending on the party splits in Congress. A president from one party facing a congress controlled by the other party will probably get less done. On the other hand doing less may be better than doing more. Many economic trends emerge which have little to do with government policies, and it is often difficult to measure the impact of government policies.
One thing seems clear, however, which is that Carly Fiorino doers not have the answers.
1
The Democrats build it up and the Republicans tear it down. We know that. It's their way. It seems to suggest to me that the government is key to economic growth, and the Republicans are not. There are makers and users, the Democrats and the Republicans respectively. Even under Reagan and even Bush I, increased taxation was important and key to economic recovery. It is the lack of government jobs today and over the last several years that has retarded economic growth the most. The Republicans choke hold on the economy, the refusal to let go, and let some good be done, continues to abuse and depress what could have been a full recovery long ago. More and better paying jobs with some sense of security is what creates and allows for increased demand, the very thing that our economy currently lacks. This is all the "obvious." Precisely, why people can't see it has to do with a long history of ignorance on the part of the undereducated voter, who continues to reign, unfortunately, else wise, there would be no contest at all.
1
The sainted Reagan cut taxes on his rich friends and then raised taxes on the middle class to pay for the resulting deficits, a feat he accomplished by posing as everyone's easy-going ah-shucks grandpa! The principal agenda of Republicans since then has been Freedom and Liberty - they want to be free of any taxation and the liberty to pursue profits at whatever cost to the nation. Everything else is just a smokescreen. They cannot kill the safety net directly since even Republicans love having Medicare and Social Security. But they can starve them to death by cutting taxes on the rich and reducing revenues to such an extent that the safety net programs have to be gutted to avoid deficits. They push up deficits by tax cuts for the rich and then hold the nation hostage to the deficits.
Clever strategy indeed! It has worked very well. The Democrats have been asleep at the wheel over the past three decades and have let the steady and relentless pursuit of the Republican goals succeed, often by explicit enabling as Clinton did in gutting Glass-Segal. By demonizing the "others" and rigging the political system and the tax code slowly and surely, they have been able to make the 99% the proverbial frog in boiling water.
Clever strategy indeed! It has worked very well. The Democrats have been asleep at the wheel over the past three decades and have let the steady and relentless pursuit of the Republican goals succeed, often by explicit enabling as Clinton did in gutting Glass-Segal. By demonizing the "others" and rigging the political system and the tax code slowly and surely, they have been able to make the 99% the proverbial frog in boiling water.
2
When Republicans are in power, we get belligerent, we go to war with other nations, even sending our own men and women to fight others' wars. When the nation is at constant wars, the short term side effect could be, "military spending and war mobilization can increase capacity utilization, reduce unemployment (through conscription), and generally induce patriotic citizens to work harder for less compensation." Hence the visual mirage of prosperity during Republican rule. The long term effect and the ripple effect is devastating for the whole world. No matter what, war and violence cannot yield peace, its just not possible, its against universal natural laws.
2
The ailment GOPers suffer from is is a common malady. Any human can contract the disease. They are errors in thinking. The notion is not new, and was described in detail by Sir Francis Bacon, the founder of inductive reason, 395 years ago. Thankfully he could categorize them into just 4 categories(idols). It seems the Republican candidates suffer from all of them.
Idols of the Tribe: This is a propensity to distort, exaggerate or embellish, a tendency belonging to all of us. We are not just content to simply say what we see, but have to add something more than is really there.
Idols of the Cave: This is taking your own education and experience, and applying it inappropriately to any situation, even if you know nothing about it.
Idols of the Marketplace: This is personalization of our language so when we try to convey our ideas, our words have differing definitions from one another. We are not on the same page, but don't realize it or care not to. Language many times is used to bully rather than explain resulting in no exchange of reliable information.
Idols of the Theatre: These are false ideas that have been proven so, but are popularized by some "learned groups"(like the Heritage Foundation) so they are continued to be believed by many in the population.
So take your pick, but the gang of 15 has let such errors overtake their thoughts. They are critically ill with this disease. However we all have to take preventive measures to avoid it also.
Idols of the Tribe: This is a propensity to distort, exaggerate or embellish, a tendency belonging to all of us. We are not just content to simply say what we see, but have to add something more than is really there.
Idols of the Cave: This is taking your own education and experience, and applying it inappropriately to any situation, even if you know nothing about it.
Idols of the Marketplace: This is personalization of our language so when we try to convey our ideas, our words have differing definitions from one another. We are not on the same page, but don't realize it or care not to. Language many times is used to bully rather than explain resulting in no exchange of reliable information.
Idols of the Theatre: These are false ideas that have been proven so, but are popularized by some "learned groups"(like the Heritage Foundation) so they are continued to be believed by many in the population.
So take your pick, but the gang of 15 has let such errors overtake their thoughts. They are critically ill with this disease. However we all have to take preventive measures to avoid it also.
2
Clark Stanley, aka The Rattlesnake King, was the former cowboy who claimed he had learned about the healing power of rattlesnake oil from Hopi medicine men.
He is the patron saint of the Grand Old Prevaricators.
Stanley created a huge stir at the 1893 World's Exposition in Chicago when he took a live snake and sliced it open before a crowd of onlookers.
"Stanley reached into a sack, plucked out a snake, slit it open and plunged it into boiling water. When the fat rose to the top, he skimmed it off and used it on the spot to create 'Stanley's Snake Oil,' a liniment that was immediately snapped up by the throng that had gathered to watch the spectacle."
Stanley's Snake Oil didn't contain any snake oil at all. After seizing a shipment of Stanley's Snake Oil in 1917, federal investigators found that it primarily contained mineral oil, a fatty oil believed to be beef fat, red pepper and turpentine.
Stanley's signature product did not contain a drop of actual snake oil, and hundreds of consumers discovered they had been had.
What happened to Clark Stanley after it was found that his whole empire was based on a lie? He was fined $20 (that's about $429 in today's dollars) for violating the food and drug act and for "misbranding" his product by "falsely and fraudulently representing it as a remedy for all pain."
Stanley did not dispute the charges.
Today's Republican platform contains all beef fat, red pepper and turpentine.
Come get your fabricated fantasies in a bottle !
He is the patron saint of the Grand Old Prevaricators.
Stanley created a huge stir at the 1893 World's Exposition in Chicago when he took a live snake and sliced it open before a crowd of onlookers.
"Stanley reached into a sack, plucked out a snake, slit it open and plunged it into boiling water. When the fat rose to the top, he skimmed it off and used it on the spot to create 'Stanley's Snake Oil,' a liniment that was immediately snapped up by the throng that had gathered to watch the spectacle."
Stanley's Snake Oil didn't contain any snake oil at all. After seizing a shipment of Stanley's Snake Oil in 1917, federal investigators found that it primarily contained mineral oil, a fatty oil believed to be beef fat, red pepper and turpentine.
Stanley's signature product did not contain a drop of actual snake oil, and hundreds of consumers discovered they had been had.
What happened to Clark Stanley after it was found that his whole empire was based on a lie? He was fined $20 (that's about $429 in today's dollars) for violating the food and drug act and for "misbranding" his product by "falsely and fraudulently representing it as a remedy for all pain."
Stanley did not dispute the charges.
Today's Republican platform contains all beef fat, red pepper and turpentine.
Come get your fabricated fantasies in a bottle !
59
One explanation for the rise in economic activity under Dems would be they tend to spread the money around. Programs to build the infrastructure or provide services to the population require people to do them and those salaries to be paid. Support for poverty measures and assistance given to those less fortunate puts money directly into the economy. Under Republican regimes, money is pulled from the economy and funneled upward where it doesn't build anything or help anyone except the most elite.
It's like the Dems invite starving people in for healthy meal, while Republican tell them they need to go on a diet.
It's like the Dems invite starving people in for healthy meal, while Republican tell them they need to go on a diet.
2
Republican Presidential candidates striving to outdo each other with nonsense, "My economic plan will double growth," "No, mine will triple growth." No one says invest public resources on public improvements, pay the workers doing them, and expand Social Security to offset the loss of private corporate pensions. We've got only one (Social) Democrat who accepts that the public are right to want what they want; higher taxes on the very rich, improved wages, a better social safety net, and improved Social Security and healthcare.
2
The essence of the Republican economic plan, articulated by Big Money's Republican flunkies in Washington is: "Make us even richer and we'll hire more workers." As G.W. Bush's tenure in office demonstrated, it doesn't work. Employment growth during that time was anemic.
The plan's fundamental flaw: making the rich richer provides them with more money to invest in plant and equipment with the potential to hire more workers, but no incentive to do so due to the lack of demand from workers who haven't had a real pay increase since Reagan skewed the distribution of income wildly in favor of the donor class.
Henry Ford paid his workers well so they would have the money to buy the cars they produced. Today's Big Money Republicans want it all for themselves. During the Reagan administration, the share of the growth in national income going to the top 10% of income earners jumped from an average of 35% in the post-war years to 87%, and during the first 7 years of GW Bush administration (before the wheels came off the wagon), that share jumped to 98%.
As Krugman says: "modern conservatives generally live in a bubble into which inconvenient facts can’t penetrate," so the myth lives on.
The plan's fundamental flaw: making the rich richer provides them with more money to invest in plant and equipment with the potential to hire more workers, but no incentive to do so due to the lack of demand from workers who haven't had a real pay increase since Reagan skewed the distribution of income wildly in favor of the donor class.
Henry Ford paid his workers well so they would have the money to buy the cars they produced. Today's Big Money Republicans want it all for themselves. During the Reagan administration, the share of the growth in national income going to the top 10% of income earners jumped from an average of 35% in the post-war years to 87%, and during the first 7 years of GW Bush administration (before the wheels came off the wagon), that share jumped to 98%.
As Krugman says: "modern conservatives generally live in a bubble into which inconvenient facts can’t penetrate," so the myth lives on.
3
When one looks back over the last seven years and the lost opportunities, it shows the sad state our country is in.
Just think: if the Republicans had not decided to oppose Mr. Obama on his every move, and instead agreed that with a country in crisis it is best for bipartisan cooperation to correct things, this might have happened:
1. More federal money dedicated to infrastructure to create jobs and tax revenues produced by the now employed.
2. A much expanded health care plan, cutting out the insurance companies, to significantly reduce the uninsured, and by the way, create more jobs in the
medical sector
3. Higher taxes on the ultra-rich, who wouldn't miss the money, including taxes on financial transactions and elimination of the carried interest low tax provision on hedge fund managers
4. Reduction in the bloated defense budget by resisting more attacks in the Middle East, and perhaps not creating ISIS
5. Pushing aside distractions from evangelicals about abortion, contraception, "religious freedom", and racism couched in voter laws
6. Gun laws: well, that's an untouchable, but absent the hate and fear generated by the Republicans, perhaps there would have been fewer mass murders
"I can dream, can't I?"
Just think: if the Republicans had not decided to oppose Mr. Obama on his every move, and instead agreed that with a country in crisis it is best for bipartisan cooperation to correct things, this might have happened:
1. More federal money dedicated to infrastructure to create jobs and tax revenues produced by the now employed.
2. A much expanded health care plan, cutting out the insurance companies, to significantly reduce the uninsured, and by the way, create more jobs in the
medical sector
3. Higher taxes on the ultra-rich, who wouldn't miss the money, including taxes on financial transactions and elimination of the carried interest low tax provision on hedge fund managers
4. Reduction in the bloated defense budget by resisting more attacks in the Middle East, and perhaps not creating ISIS
5. Pushing aside distractions from evangelicals about abortion, contraception, "religious freedom", and racism couched in voter laws
6. Gun laws: well, that's an untouchable, but absent the hate and fear generated by the Republicans, perhaps there would have been fewer mass murders
"I can dream, can't I?"
3
Republicans always claim they will produce huge economic growth simply by freeing businesses from big-bad government regulations and taxes. Businesses will expand and hire more workers and life will be good. But it's not the Republicans' miracle claims that is the problem; the problem is the Republican base that believes these claims.
The Republican base thinks the party's miracle claims make sense; they don't choose to look at the history of this failed prescription and they don't care about the consequences of unregulated un-taxed business; if they get burned by unscrupulous unregulated business they just blame it on big-bad government that doesn't work; if potholes don't get filled, schools close or bridges collapse, they conclude government is at fault because it is too big and bad to work and therefore must be cut. They don't/can't connect the dots.
Education is the only remedy for delusional Republican miracle claims. And that is why education is under attack by all Republican controlled states.
The Republican base thinks the party's miracle claims make sense; they don't choose to look at the history of this failed prescription and they don't care about the consequences of unregulated un-taxed business; if they get burned by unscrupulous unregulated business they just blame it on big-bad government that doesn't work; if potholes don't get filled, schools close or bridges collapse, they conclude government is at fault because it is too big and bad to work and therefore must be cut. They don't/can't connect the dots.
Education is the only remedy for delusional Republican miracle claims. And that is why education is under attack by all Republican controlled states.
1
The largest attempt to control the economy came under Republican President Nixon. I remember the wage-price controls which ultimately lead us to about a decade of economic disaster. Wages took a beating while prices rose, especially oil. Suddenly the cost of earning a frozen salary went up due to increased oil prices. Gasoline and home heating oil were clearly out of control. All of those who love listening to Republican cant about economics ought to research, if they are too young to remember, the good old attempt at decimating labor in the name of the common good while the prices went up because the controls evolved into a voluntary phase which was like telling a burglar to take the stainless and leave the silver. The word "control" is what gets everybody worked up. Perhaps we ought to use the word "protection." Who would be against protecting us from the empty headed prattling of Rubio and Trump and company who want to free up cash for those that already have the lion's share while make the rest of us pay for it?
Mr. Krugman writes that it would be nice "if even one major G.O.P. candidate would come out against big tax cuts for the 1 percent." I have often wondered why this is the case, but a recent N.Y. Times analysis provided the answer: specifically, this analysis indicated that, in the last reporting period, just 128 wealthy families provided the majority of Republican donations. And what do most of these wealthy families want? That's right - tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Since It is almost impossible to run a competitive presidential campaign without a significant amount of money, and since a very high percentage of donations comes from wealthy donors (Mr. Trump is currently an exception) we can expect everyone of the top Republican candidates , out of necessity, to incessantly call for tax cuts for the wealthy.
4
Given that Congress controls the purse strings, I'd rather see a study about whether we're better under a Republican or Democratic Congress.
Even better, I'd see a study about whether having the President from a different party controlling Congress. Since business hates legislative uncertainty, the environment for a better economy is better with gridlock.
I'd also point out that using averages of yearly GDP growth can be deceptive. The correct comparison is total GDP percentage growth over a President's total term in office.
Even better, I'd see a study about whether having the President from a different party controlling Congress. Since business hates legislative uncertainty, the environment for a better economy is better with gridlock.
I'd also point out that using averages of yearly GDP growth can be deceptive. The correct comparison is total GDP percentage growth over a President's total term in office.
iIf Carly announced that "the sun rises in the east, roughly" my first reaction would be to go out and check that it still did.
While there is a clear separation between business management and macroeconomics, her performance as a manager was beyond dreadful, beyond incompetent. She was exactly one of the grifters of which you have spoken.
The grifting play was "Itanium:" a little searching will show anyone that
wikipedia: "In a 2009 article on the history of the processor — "How the Itanium Killed the Computer Industry" — journalist John C. Dvorak reported "This continues to be one of the great fiascos of the last 50 years". Tech columnist Ashlee Vance commented that the delays and underperformance "turned the product into a joke in the chip industry.""
Itanium was a fancy technological stock-kiting play: a miracle "100 mile per gallon car" hyped to high heaven for over a year before it finally limped out the door, to prove it was a loser. It was a triumph of marketing "sell the sizzle, not the steak" ... but "where's the beef" does catch up pretty quickly in technology.
The question of just how cynical and intentionally fraudulent the management decisions (at both HP and Intel) remains unclear -- as opposed to gross self-delusion and wishful thinking. It is clear that senior engineers at both companies were warning that it would not deliver claimed performance. Barrett of Intel resigned shortly after Carly was fired.
While there is a clear separation between business management and macroeconomics, her performance as a manager was beyond dreadful, beyond incompetent. She was exactly one of the grifters of which you have spoken.
The grifting play was "Itanium:" a little searching will show anyone that
wikipedia: "In a 2009 article on the history of the processor — "How the Itanium Killed the Computer Industry" — journalist John C. Dvorak reported "This continues to be one of the great fiascos of the last 50 years". Tech columnist Ashlee Vance commented that the delays and underperformance "turned the product into a joke in the chip industry.""
Itanium was a fancy technological stock-kiting play: a miracle "100 mile per gallon car" hyped to high heaven for over a year before it finally limped out the door, to prove it was a loser. It was a triumph of marketing "sell the sizzle, not the steak" ... but "where's the beef" does catch up pretty quickly in technology.
The question of just how cynical and intentionally fraudulent the management decisions (at both HP and Intel) remains unclear -- as opposed to gross self-delusion and wishful thinking. It is clear that senior engineers at both companies were warning that it would not deliver claimed performance. Barrett of Intel resigned shortly after Carly was fired.
1
Republican have convinced themselves that the interplay between government and rest of the economy is always and in all respects a zero sum game: everything any of them has to say boils down to that. Ironically, from 1856 (and earlier) through 1932, this perspective was largely confined to the Democratic Party and the Republicans generally stood for the idea that government fuels growth by, among other things, spending on such collective goods as infrastructure, education and research. Moreover, these original Republicans proved that it was true.
One constant is that the Republicans (and the Federalists and Whigs before them) were and are the party of the white, the protestant and the rich. The question for future historians is why these people lost faith in the socio-economic-political system they created. That is the core message of "conservativism" -- a deep pessimism about the American order.
One constant is that the Republicans (and the Federalists and Whigs before them) were and are the party of the white, the protestant and the rich. The question for future historians is why these people lost faith in the socio-economic-political system they created. That is the core message of "conservativism" -- a deep pessimism about the American order.
2
Better overall economic growth under Democrats might perhaps have something to do with their more moderated participation in the world. Their platforms and politicians espouse diplomatic solutions to problems over chest-thumping American Exceptionalism. Overall, they don't adopt a knee-jerk hawkish reaction as often and waste the economy on expensive wars..
Also, the tendency to be affected by a "bleeding heart" populist approach is inclusive vs. exclusive when programs and policies are enacted.
The "base" of the GOP seems embedded in religious extremism, corporate elitism and a casual government that is isolated from the majority of the populace. Can you imagine if we were 50 countries instead of 50 "united" states? Yet Republicans aim to disintegrate most federal oversight (except, of course, dismantling Planned Parenthood, Overturning Roe v. Wade) and put the governing in our country into a privatized corporate world. Unfortunately, capitalism mandates that the brass ring is ever rising profits....so the economy is trampled in the greed-inspired race to the top. No surprise, in my book, and I'm not even an economist! Isn't there a saying (and I'm sure I'm paraphrasing here) about a chain is only as strong as its weakest link?
The Dems look out for all the links...the Reps look out for the biggest ones. So whose chain is stronger?
Also, the tendency to be affected by a "bleeding heart" populist approach is inclusive vs. exclusive when programs and policies are enacted.
The "base" of the GOP seems embedded in religious extremism, corporate elitism and a casual government that is isolated from the majority of the populace. Can you imagine if we were 50 countries instead of 50 "united" states? Yet Republicans aim to disintegrate most federal oversight (except, of course, dismantling Planned Parenthood, Overturning Roe v. Wade) and put the governing in our country into a privatized corporate world. Unfortunately, capitalism mandates that the brass ring is ever rising profits....so the economy is trampled in the greed-inspired race to the top. No surprise, in my book, and I'm not even an economist! Isn't there a saying (and I'm sure I'm paraphrasing here) about a chain is only as strong as its weakest link?
The Dems look out for all the links...the Reps look out for the biggest ones. So whose chain is stronger?
3
Hillary knows more about the economy than Carly ever will. Republican economic snake oil is addictive. Addicts claim it cures all maladies by magical growth which which they cannot deliver with tax cuts for the rich their sole magic elixir.
The GOP believes that their ends justify the means they employ to achieve them; which is a one party state and a ruling class. Only Republicans should be permitted to govern.
Their means include proven lies, repeated and repeated again and again, slander and character assassination, misinformation, a body of proven lies which must be accepted as true and never questioned, simple dishonesty, fear mongering, racism, slander and sabotaging the economy to blame Democrats.
The Republicans have their own truth, which means if they say it is true, whatever it is it's true. For a long time the GOP has been reduced to a permanent minority. It is now a cult which draws people who are neither fit to govern or want to do so.
Republican politics has become a racket for those who crave money and power or ego satisfaction. Look how successful and important we are running for president. Those who are not with them and accept their “Republican Truth” are against them including the mainstream press which is corporate owned.
Just so many crows sitting in a wire cackling: Tax cuts for the rich; deregulation of business; privatization of government functions, suppressing voting; cutting SS and/or Medicare. Patriotism v Conservatism
The GOP believes that their ends justify the means they employ to achieve them; which is a one party state and a ruling class. Only Republicans should be permitted to govern.
Their means include proven lies, repeated and repeated again and again, slander and character assassination, misinformation, a body of proven lies which must be accepted as true and never questioned, simple dishonesty, fear mongering, racism, slander and sabotaging the economy to blame Democrats.
The Republicans have their own truth, which means if they say it is true, whatever it is it's true. For a long time the GOP has been reduced to a permanent minority. It is now a cult which draws people who are neither fit to govern or want to do so.
Republican politics has become a racket for those who crave money and power or ego satisfaction. Look how successful and important we are running for president. Those who are not with them and accept their “Republican Truth” are against them including the mainstream press which is corporate owned.
Just so many crows sitting in a wire cackling: Tax cuts for the rich; deregulation of business; privatization of government functions, suppressing voting; cutting SS and/or Medicare. Patriotism v Conservatism
1
The republicans constantly preach a "free lunch" for all. Lower taxes for the rich, more jobs and higher income for the middle-class and the poorer among us. They preach that the government must balance its budget as do individual families. They fail to point out that individual families, and probably most if not all republican families borrow money, i.e. mortgages, credit cards, car loans, student loans, etc. Many families borrow, assuming credit availability, to make large purchases which are paid for over time. The ability to borrow has been the driver for out economy since the mid-forties. So much for the allegory of government spending and budget practices vs American families.
1
Every year in September, Inc. Magazine puts a spotlight on the 500 fastest growing private companies in America. The list is a who's who of small and medium size businesses that are achieving spectacular revenue growth (#500 on the list had a paltry three year growth rate of 912.6%). To say the least, these companies are big job creators.
As part of the selection process, Inc. surveys and profiles applicants on a number of factors including their industry, demographics, ownership structure, etc. They also ask the companies to rate a variety of "obstacles" to their growth. Highest on the list: finding good staff and keeping up with demand. Lowest on the list: taxes and government regulations, which are viewed as "nonevents." The report added "Inc. 500 CEOs overwhelmingly prefer a productive Congress to gridlock."
So much for the Republican mantra that the Obama administration's policies are killing jobs, and that we need to eliminate job crushing regulations and cut taxes to kick-start the economy.
As part of the selection process, Inc. surveys and profiles applicants on a number of factors including their industry, demographics, ownership structure, etc. They also ask the companies to rate a variety of "obstacles" to their growth. Highest on the list: finding good staff and keeping up with demand. Lowest on the list: taxes and government regulations, which are viewed as "nonevents." The report added "Inc. 500 CEOs overwhelmingly prefer a productive Congress to gridlock."
So much for the Republican mantra that the Obama administration's policies are killing jobs, and that we need to eliminate job crushing regulations and cut taxes to kick-start the economy.
4
MR Krugman
Isn't it true that 2/3 of the jobs created under Obama are part time jobs?
Is the 62.2% labor participation rate a myth and if not how do you account for a 38 year low?
If the economy is doing so well under Obama why has the Fed once again refused to raise interest rates?
Why has income for men risen 2.7% this year and only 0.8% for women? What happened to the income inequality between men and women?
Why is the poverty rate the highest it's been since the war on poverty began under Johnson?
Why is that 27% of those unemployed been out of work over 2 years?
According to the Tax Policy Center receipts to the Treasury in 2009 were $2.105.0 trillion. In 2016 it will be 3.525.2 trillion. In 2020 it is estimated to be $4.332.2 trillion. My question is this. Why can't Democrats stop spending like drunken sailors? The receipts will have gone up $1.5 trillion since Obama took office and that's still not enough. Let's raise taxes over and over. That's the only solution to Democrats. Fiscal responsibility is tantamount to driving a stake in the heart of a vampire. It will never happen.
I realize as a Keynesian you are not interested in the debt rising because you have no intent on ever paying it off. But eventually, won't the interest on the debt be enough that we will have to address it? And with growing demand on Social Security and Medicare just who will you tax with a dwindling work force? You can't kick the can forever.
Isn't it true that 2/3 of the jobs created under Obama are part time jobs?
Is the 62.2% labor participation rate a myth and if not how do you account for a 38 year low?
If the economy is doing so well under Obama why has the Fed once again refused to raise interest rates?
Why has income for men risen 2.7% this year and only 0.8% for women? What happened to the income inequality between men and women?
Why is the poverty rate the highest it's been since the war on poverty began under Johnson?
Why is that 27% of those unemployed been out of work over 2 years?
According to the Tax Policy Center receipts to the Treasury in 2009 were $2.105.0 trillion. In 2016 it will be 3.525.2 trillion. In 2020 it is estimated to be $4.332.2 trillion. My question is this. Why can't Democrats stop spending like drunken sailors? The receipts will have gone up $1.5 trillion since Obama took office and that's still not enough. Let's raise taxes over and over. That's the only solution to Democrats. Fiscal responsibility is tantamount to driving a stake in the heart of a vampire. It will never happen.
I realize as a Keynesian you are not interested in the debt rising because you have no intent on ever paying it off. But eventually, won't the interest on the debt be enough that we will have to address it? And with growing demand on Social Security and Medicare just who will you tax with a dwindling work force? You can't kick the can forever.
2
And which Party has controlled Congress during the bulk of these past seven years? Under the circumstances it's pretty amazing that we've made any progress at all vis a vis the economy. Remember John ("The economy's doing just fine") McCain? Had he been elected in 2008 we'd be in the midst of a Depression right now.
4
I must take one exception to PK's mention of this latest recession. While economists and the White House see the Great Recession as lasting from 2008-2009, some industries felt it coming on by 2005. Before retiring, I was in the advertising and marketing communications biz for 45 years. Following the dot-com collapse, business started to pick up a bit but then, clients, even the most loyal of them, started to take more than 90 days to pay invoices for services. Projects started to take longer to complete. Fewer projects became the norm. Project budgets began to shrink. And this was not the first time this happened. For, every time the conservatives served up, and implemented, trickle-down economics, economic failures became the new norm.
Marketing can be a big indicator of local prosperity and, as those trends take on a wider geographical radius, fears within the ranks of consumers and businesses take hold ever faster. Thus, it can take 3-5 years before the economic brainiacs in Washington finally declare a recession is upon us.
Recessions have indicators that precede them. That Bernanke and Paulson could stand before a podium in late 2008 and, with two pages of double-spaced notes, tell the American People that they didn't see it coming is a cruel hoax and insults the intelligence of the People. Presidential nominee, Sen. John. McCain was declaring the economy as strong the month before the collapse.
Apparently, fact-free, wishful thinking will always trump reality.
Marketing can be a big indicator of local prosperity and, as those trends take on a wider geographical radius, fears within the ranks of consumers and businesses take hold ever faster. Thus, it can take 3-5 years before the economic brainiacs in Washington finally declare a recession is upon us.
Recessions have indicators that precede them. That Bernanke and Paulson could stand before a podium in late 2008 and, with two pages of double-spaced notes, tell the American People that they didn't see it coming is a cruel hoax and insults the intelligence of the People. Presidential nominee, Sen. John. McCain was declaring the economy as strong the month before the collapse.
Apparently, fact-free, wishful thinking will always trump reality.
2
But wouldn't Republican tax cuts produce a Keynesian deficit that would then propel economic growth, like, well, the neo-Keynesians (i.e., Paul Krugman, et al) claim? The Republicans, even if they got their tax cuts for billionaires would still not be able, not in even the parallel economic universe in which they live, be able to cut much out of government spending, and particularly not regarding entitlement programs like Social Security. Thus Republican tax cuts should equal deficits should equal economic growth (but because Keynes said it would, not because of some supply-sider fantasy).
While I believe billionaires should pay more in taxes, and I don't believe that the wealth of billionaires does much trickling down at all, it still is the case, that any reduction in taxes should be good for private-sector economic growth.
A better idea for the Republicans to embrace is to expand the earned income tax credit--basically a social welfare program--which might then put more disposable income in the hands of people likely to spend it, which might then expand the consumer demand that the billionaires are so dependent upon for their billions. Call it bubble-up economics, but it is truly how societal wealth is equitably created.
While I believe billionaires should pay more in taxes, and I don't believe that the wealth of billionaires does much trickling down at all, it still is the case, that any reduction in taxes should be good for private-sector economic growth.
A better idea for the Republicans to embrace is to expand the earned income tax credit--basically a social welfare program--which might then put more disposable income in the hands of people likely to spend it, which might then expand the consumer demand that the billionaires are so dependent upon for their billions. Call it bubble-up economics, but it is truly how societal wealth is equitably created.
24
The Keynesian approach is to invest in progress to buoy the economic dark times, not to slash revenues. Yes, slashing revenues would result in deficit spending, too, but without the increased investment in infrastructure and the creation of government-sponsored work to offset a sluggish private sector.
1
SD, as has been stated before, it's not a matter of tax cuts, it's a matter of which tax cuts and to whom. Republican tax cuts favor the wealthy. Since (also according to classical economics) the wealthy save/invest and the poor/middle class consume, that would be simulative if there were currently a shortage of capital for investment, and an excess of consumer demand/consumption. But the facts says the opposite-- interest rates are near 0% and asset values are near their all-time high (meaning there is an excess of capital for investment) while inflation is "inexplicably" low-- meaning consumer demand lags the supply of goods. So, a tax cut for the rich would just exaggerate the problems we now have. In contrast, a $1000 tax cut per person would stimulate consumption, and might add to growth. But you never hear that from the Republicans-- you hear cuts for the rich (top brackets lowered, kill the estate tax). You even hear proposals like VAT replacing income tax-- VAT has the same effect as a sales tax, and would actually reduce consumption.
2
When did those who control the means of production ever distribute wealth equally? When they got huge tax cuts they did not reinvest in the economy; they did not create jobs; they took their money off shore; they put their money in Luxembourg and The Netherlands. Those countries are going to tax their profits; they now want to bring their profits home either tax free or at a minimum rate. This is the economy Hoover created and FDR fixed. When we have enough unemployed and jobless youth, this Congress will feel the heat. We have a young demographic and they will vote in their best interests. Not all young people can fly to Germany to take advantage of education and job benefits there; and, if they all could, Germany is no longer growing jobs or funding education for foreign students. A bunch of rich, white men are strangling the economy and hurting young Americans. It is only a matter of time; however, they are not the smartest Congress we have ever had, so it will take time.
2
Here's a cynical twist that comments on republican manipulation. The average wage is so depressed here that even those paid $12/hr do have reliable enough hours to pay basic utilities. A program to help eligible poor receive help with paying winter utilities that is heavily relied upon by these workers with insecure employment starts its appointments tomorrow--Election Day.
There is no better guarantee to prevent specifically targeted residents across the entire state who would vote democratic away from the polls than to make them have to wait in line in order to have heat for the winter.
It also illustrates another reason for why we do better under democratic than republican rule. Powered elites welcomed by the enthralled republican party help them get away with as much as they can until eventually a groundswell of everybody else finally pushes powered elites around a little. As this column details, this is a cycle where the unempowered have a corrective role but not enough to compensate for the cumulative corrosion of powered elites. By definition, democrats have become the clean up crew. The question is when will powered elites have gone too far and are finally put in their proper place?
My best guess is when the lights don't come on in winter.
And if democrats prevail will powered elites infiltrate creating the cycle all over again? Looks like they will.
There is no better guarantee to prevent specifically targeted residents across the entire state who would vote democratic away from the polls than to make them have to wait in line in order to have heat for the winter.
It also illustrates another reason for why we do better under democratic than republican rule. Powered elites welcomed by the enthralled republican party help them get away with as much as they can until eventually a groundswell of everybody else finally pushes powered elites around a little. As this column details, this is a cycle where the unempowered have a corrective role but not enough to compensate for the cumulative corrosion of powered elites. By definition, democrats have become the clean up crew. The question is when will powered elites have gone too far and are finally put in their proper place?
My best guess is when the lights don't come on in winter.
And if democrats prevail will powered elites infiltrate creating the cycle all over again? Looks like they will.
3
I have an answer for Krugman. Why pick the control of the presidency as the benchmark? The real correlation is who controls congress, instead of who is the president because tax law and spending originates in congress. However, what we have seen in the past 7 years is a "cook the books" administration refuse to report the truth about unemployment, labor participation rate and cost of living. Government meddling with the economy has yielded a society where it is no longer possible for most families to live on a single parent income. This has changed the basic structure of the family, for the worse, and helped to destroy the family unit. I believe that things are much worse today than in the 50s and 60s and getting worse daily. College students and graduates are dealing with massive debt because of yet another government policy with its unintended consequences. Yes, that $200K personal debt will be tough for that new sociologist , psychologist or art history major to pay back so a debt default is likely, meanwhile the engineering schools are 90%+ foreign students who get educated and then, because of our insane immigration system, leave the country to help their country make better products. The only correlation I see is the more government meddling, the worse things get. Krugman can't see the forest for the trees.
2
Professor Krugman asks, "Why is the Democratic [economic] record so much better? The short answer is that we don’t know." I may not be an economist, although I did study under a Nobel laureate in economics and learned a lot about statistics and research methods along the way. So, let me offer one possible answer: Regression to the mean (or average). Americans continue to buy, as they have for over a century, the economic snake-oil of Republicans with their anti-regulatory, tax-cuts for the rich approach and they continue to get burned as the economy tanks into recessions under Republicans abysmal management of the economy. So, then of course, they elect Democrats when the economy is at an extreme low point. That's where "regression to the mean" occurs. There's a tendency is all multivariate systems to return to the long-term average, and Democrats benefit from that. It may not be the entire explanation, but it certainly seems to fit the pattern of recent history starting, of course, with the Great Depression and continuing into the Great Recession. So, the message is: while it may just be a matter of economic chance, would you really buy a computer, never mind economic advice and predictions, from Carly Fiorina?
2
The republicans frequently don't do well because they force reality into their ideology. There are times when it will work but most times it doesn't. The democrats are much more pragmatic and adapt to the circumstances. They raise and lower taxes to meet the needs of society. The republicans just serve the 1% and never change there strategy.
2
In our divided Government Presidential elections are only particularly important when accompanied with a strong Majority Party. Then as in a Parliamentary system the president has some power to change things. I only have Medicare because LBJ had a Strong Majority after the Kennedy Assasination. Unlike Parliamentary system like England, not much can change when parties change because rarely does a single party, never homogeneous anyway have a strong majority. A President can usually accomplish little in reform and Obamacare however less than perfect was a near miracle. The exception of course is the ability of the executive to wage wars but even this appears to be coming to an end.
The only reason why Republican Talk is interesting as it ways what the donor class of the Republican Party want to hear now which seems very frightening. The U.S. is less stable than it appears and under stressful circumstances a Coup de Etat which near happened during the Kennedy Adminstration can occur. If this happens hopefully unlikely we will look like the banana Republican like Chile under Pinochet. While our democracy is not particular good for the less fortunate Americans, our Freedom of Speech may vanish in that circumstance as limited as it is which will make us look worse not better than Communist China.
The only reason why Republican Talk is interesting as it ways what the donor class of the Republican Party want to hear now which seems very frightening. The U.S. is less stable than it appears and under stressful circumstances a Coup de Etat which near happened during the Kennedy Adminstration can occur. If this happens hopefully unlikely we will look like the banana Republican like Chile under Pinochet. While our democracy is not particular good for the less fortunate Americans, our Freedom of Speech may vanish in that circumstance as limited as it is which will make us look worse not better than Communist China.
2
If we want growth we need to raise incomes for those earning less than $100K per year and we need to invest in infrastructure, education and early childhood care. The demand by more people working and earning will drive growth and tax receipts.
Austerity reduced demand as the government is not buying or hiring and that hurts everyone. Taxing investors the sames as workers should be the beginning of every conversation
Austerity reduced demand as the government is not buying or hiring and that hurts everyone. Taxing investors the sames as workers should be the beginning of every conversation
5
Krugman probably thinks that part time jobs count as job creation. So when employees are reduced to part time work in order for employers to avoid Obamacare, they are required to get multiple jobs to make ends meet.
2
Malarkey. Companies have been using reduced hours as a tool to avoid benefits and other responsibilities for decades.
Seems to me that the national debt as an investment we have made increasingly since the 1980s, has paid off handsomely over all.
Applying the PMT function in EXCEL to a recent national public debt ($17 trillion) at an average interest rate (2.43%) and a term of 30, and 60 years and a debt to income ratio of 43% as a guide for troubled loans I do not find the national debt is a problem at all even doubling the interest rate.
However, current net interest payments on the national debt ($222.8 billion in 2013) are not enough to pay it off that debt over the productive lifetime of a citizen (say 60 years). By my reckoning, our -the current- generation is sloughing off much of the current debt to the next generation. I have yet to hear or see from the Republican Party how cutting taxes and spending is anything but a fraud perpetrated on the next generation.
Applying the PMT function in EXCEL to a recent national public debt ($17 trillion) at an average interest rate (2.43%) and a term of 30, and 60 years and a debt to income ratio of 43% as a guide for troubled loans I do not find the national debt is a problem at all even doubling the interest rate.
However, current net interest payments on the national debt ($222.8 billion in 2013) are not enough to pay it off that debt over the productive lifetime of a citizen (say 60 years). By my reckoning, our -the current- generation is sloughing off much of the current debt to the next generation. I have yet to hear or see from the Republican Party how cutting taxes and spending is anything but a fraud perpetrated on the next generation.
1
Mr. Binder and Watson, contrary to the claim in the column, do offer an explanation of sorts:
To quote from the summary of their paper :
"The Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior TFP performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future,"
In other words, dumb luck.
So if it comes to your pocket book, feel free to vote for either party.
To quote from the summary of their paper :
"The Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior TFP performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future,"
In other words, dumb luck.
So if it comes to your pocket book, feel free to vote for either party.
You, along with the other Republicans posting here, fail to recognize what PK is saying. It is your party that claims it has some profound understanding of economics and policy-making, which is demonstrably false. Unfortunately, you live in a sealed bubble, into which facts do not permeate. We have state-level experiments running at the moment, and they do not bode well for your side. Moreover, if one we to extend the time series back to the emergence of the two parties in this country, the paper's findings would be even stronger. You do remember Herbert Hoover, do you not?
The Republican platform is pretty simple - grow the armaments industry and make war using money and soldiers from the middle and lower classes to enrich the already wealthy, while doing their best to enslave the working class by minimizing worker rights, reducing pension obligations (Social Security and Medicare), making healthcare tough to get (gut Obamacare), etc. Confusing the populace with racist and nativist fears, envy politics, and lies of mythical stories of "rugged individualism" serve their true purposes. They are evil and selfish and need to be called out.
18
Let's look at Obama's " Democratic" growth record.
Obama killed the middle class and created a huge billionaire class with his economic policies.
And the standard of living for most Americans is lower now than it was in the 20th century.
And according to the Keynesian Levy Institute we are undergoing the worst recovery in almost every dimension since the Great Depression.*
The Obama billionaire boom- all of Obama's growth went to the billionaires.
2015 1,826 $7.1 trillion under Obama
2008 1,125 $4.4 trillion under Bush
If this is success I'd hate to see failure.... I am seeing failure for the middle-class under Obama's economic policies.
*http://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/fiscal-austerity-dollar-apprec...
Obama killed the middle class and created a huge billionaire class with his economic policies.
And the standard of living for most Americans is lower now than it was in the 20th century.
And according to the Keynesian Levy Institute we are undergoing the worst recovery in almost every dimension since the Great Depression.*
The Obama billionaire boom- all of Obama's growth went to the billionaires.
2015 1,826 $7.1 trillion under Obama
2008 1,125 $4.4 trillion under Bush
If this is success I'd hate to see failure.... I am seeing failure for the middle-class under Obama's economic policies.
*http://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/fiscal-austerity-dollar-apprec...
1
Dear JH:
You give the President all the credit for single-handedly creating the widening wealth gap in the U.S. I recall that the US Congress played a primary role in nearly all economic and tax policy actions (or, more accurately, inaction) in the past seven years. I'm not sure that you would recognize failure if came to your door for Halloween. It will be dressed as a Tea Party Patriot, dressed more or less accurately but woefully ignorant of the actual history such garb represents.
You give the President all the credit for single-handedly creating the widening wealth gap in the U.S. I recall that the US Congress played a primary role in nearly all economic and tax policy actions (or, more accurately, inaction) in the past seven years. I'm not sure that you would recognize failure if came to your door for Halloween. It will be dressed as a Tea Party Patriot, dressed more or less accurately but woefully ignorant of the actual history such garb represents.
2
If this were a dictatorship, you might have an argument. But it is Congress that sets tax policy and has made it nearly impossible for anti-trust laws to work any more.
You saw failure. It came from Bush. Obama has been repairing his destruction for years. A little cooperation from the GOP would make a ton of difference.
I am an American. I think Social Security should be cut back and partially privatized. It should surely be means tested. The US has the most progressive tax system in the world once you count capital gains. They wealthy in the US pay a higher level of revenue than any where else in the world. Krugman knows this. He just ignores it due to his political biases.
Simply not true! There are any number of Billionaires in this country who manage to pay little or no taxes, and they write off every possible living expense that the rest of us can't.
The loopholes in the tax system allow wealthy Americans to pay lower taxes than nearly any country.
One thing Republican candidates are very good at, Paul, is creating a separate reality and selling it to a base obsessed with feeding delusional beliefs. Economic delusion is just one of many.
* Man-made climate change Is a hoax - 97% of scientists believe it's real
* Barack Obama has doubled deficits - he's cut them, by more than 1/2, a $1 trillion reduction, and had the lowest year-over-year increase in spending since Truman. Eisenhower was the last Republican to equal this record.
* Tax cuts stimulate the economy - $1 spent on unemployment benefits results in $1.61 of economic growth and, spent on food stamps, $1.74 in economic growth. $1 of tax cuts results in $0.32 of economic growth.
* Affordable Care covers abortion causing emergency contraception - It doesn't
* You're safer with a gun in your home - a gun in the house doubles the chance a household member will kill himself or herself. It's 50% more likely an American will shoot him or herself that be shot by an assailant. Over 30,000 Americans shoot themselves every year.
* Breathing releases "dangerous" CO2 - say Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, a completely delusional conclusion.
* Voter fraud requires I. D. Laws - voter fraud is 0.01% of votes cast in a the general election
A lot of people build delusional castles n the sky; it's a Republicans lifestyle to live in them.
* Man-made climate change Is a hoax - 97% of scientists believe it's real
* Barack Obama has doubled deficits - he's cut them, by more than 1/2, a $1 trillion reduction, and had the lowest year-over-year increase in spending since Truman. Eisenhower was the last Republican to equal this record.
* Tax cuts stimulate the economy - $1 spent on unemployment benefits results in $1.61 of economic growth and, spent on food stamps, $1.74 in economic growth. $1 of tax cuts results in $0.32 of economic growth.
* Affordable Care covers abortion causing emergency contraception - It doesn't
* You're safer with a gun in your home - a gun in the house doubles the chance a household member will kill himself or herself. It's 50% more likely an American will shoot him or herself that be shot by an assailant. Over 30,000 Americans shoot themselves every year.
* Breathing releases "dangerous" CO2 - say Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, a completely delusional conclusion.
* Voter fraud requires I. D. Laws - voter fraud is 0.01% of votes cast in a the general election
A lot of people build delusional castles n the sky; it's a Republicans lifestyle to live in them.
28
That "separate reality" is what prevailed in the Bunker in the spring of 1945. Do we, as Americans, really want or need to go to total national ruin and foreign occupation in order to regain our sanity?
Poet McTeagle (below) has it right. We live in an "consumption economy" and have for many years. Democratic administrations are better at transferring money into the pockets of consumers, both through government programs and through the stimulative effect of these programs on the private sector. We need high government spending in order to make our consumption economy work up to its capacity. Austerity and more money for the rich (who tend to use their funds to inflate stock prices because there is no where else to put it) does not help our GDP and the employment rate. The Republicans unfriendly attitude toward the less rich also leads to consumers going into debt to finance a middle class life style. Housing, education and medical and child care eat up consumer's money, as do huge finance charges, and leave less and less discretionary income that would help to stimulate growth. Republicans represent the sellers, not the buyers, and the sellers are happy to sell high end items to the rich. This is where the growth has been: luxury items with large profit margins. Let the rest of us shop at the Dollar Store.
6
I've witched all three Republican debates and every single candidate came across as the Wizard of Oz, selling his mumbo jumbo behind the curtain.
Every single one.
Every single one.
9
The Democrats are a fearful bunch. They would rather speak like a Republican than fight against the Republican discourse. The Demcrats do not have cohesive talking points and so they offer no alternative discourse. The result is that the Republican message embeds itself into the public's imagination. Centrist fearful Democrats like the Clintons follow the current discourse and offer no leadership. In fact such tactics of centrists are the reason for the Republican message standing unchallenged. Democratic centrists adopted the same principles of lower taxes. In their quest for office it was their fear of taking a stand that led the discourse away from any challenge to the Republican discourse. The Democrats like the Clintons simply adopt whatever speaking points will get them into office. I tired of the lack of leadership. What they do not understand is that this is in essence a cultural war. Without a fight the message of the Republicans will stand as the sole story guiding the imagination of the citezens.
10
agree with all that you write - but we first need a Plan - leadership comes second.
we need a focused strategy consistently delivered. democrat policy is fact based and reasonable, because that's what works in a real world.
the problem is that facts do not sell. people buy/believe/vote based on (80%) emotion (see Berne's transactional analysis). reason is overwhelmed and only comes in at the end of the "i want" decision.
the republican approach starts with donor class interests, and this is a more cohesive and concise way to plan strategy than scattered facts. republicans have a more focused leg-up out of the gate.
then they apply their fact-free but emotionally evocative talking points aligned with donor class interests distributed through many megaphones - backed by lots of money to smooth the way.
this crafty republican approach to office takeover (aided by gerrymandering and other efforts to degrade democrat votes) works. but fact-free governance makes bad policy, causing a decline of the country.
that's OK with them. they loudly blame the democrats for the negative consequences of their fact-free approach while pushing their donor interests.
democrats must deploy a focused, sustained, and righteous attack on the donor class, after a smart fact-based analysis of their insurgent/terrorist strategy.
enough with the hand-wringing - we need to take it to them with a Focused Plan of Attack to cut off the head.
we need a focused strategy consistently delivered. democrat policy is fact based and reasonable, because that's what works in a real world.
the problem is that facts do not sell. people buy/believe/vote based on (80%) emotion (see Berne's transactional analysis). reason is overwhelmed and only comes in at the end of the "i want" decision.
the republican approach starts with donor class interests, and this is a more cohesive and concise way to plan strategy than scattered facts. republicans have a more focused leg-up out of the gate.
then they apply their fact-free but emotionally evocative talking points aligned with donor class interests distributed through many megaphones - backed by lots of money to smooth the way.
this crafty republican approach to office takeover (aided by gerrymandering and other efforts to degrade democrat votes) works. but fact-free governance makes bad policy, causing a decline of the country.
that's OK with them. they loudly blame the democrats for the negative consequences of their fact-free approach while pushing their donor interests.
democrats must deploy a focused, sustained, and righteous attack on the donor class, after a smart fact-based analysis of their insurgent/terrorist strategy.
enough with the hand-wringing - we need to take it to them with a Focused Plan of Attack to cut off the head.
2
On top of the excellent data here and from the commenters, Republican politicians in GOP controlled states benefit daily from past Democratic initiatives. The champion ones have to be Social Security and Medicare. This has been true in Florida in particular due to the huge number of retirees who have moved here. Bush? and now Scott benefit from the enormous cash inflows from the "bad" federal government. Retirees spend their SS benefits which helps offset any especially as this activity generates the multiplier effect. They will claim credit for any benefit this windfall accrues to their state. Deceit in extreme.
10
Retirees spend their SS benefits which helps offset any [downturn] especially as this activity generates the multiplier effect.
Indiscriminate clicking on my part
Indiscriminate clicking on my part
So, when it comes to modern politics and economic policy prescriptions, the Republicans are nothing more than "snake oil salesman" in the service of their donors -- the one percent.
13
Ecologically speaking Republicans resemble roaches since they promote policies that ruin their own environment, policies that promote high birth rates but neglect the offspring, policies that destroy the means of production in favor of a quick profit. They're "r" selected.
Democrats resemble whales & elephants even. They're pro family. Pro education. Pro health. The young are nurtured & educated. They're matriarchal centered. Men are not as important as the family-unit, but that doesn't make them anti-male.
Some scholars believe believed that the destruction of female gods by earlier civilizations in favor of a single male dominated religion made civilization more bloody, more violent, & more aggressive. Whatever caused societies to ignore whole elements of life is just a big mistake.
We've tried the Republican method and it doesn't do what it claims to do. Time to bring balance back before we strip the planet clean.
Democrats resemble whales & elephants even. They're pro family. Pro education. Pro health. The young are nurtured & educated. They're matriarchal centered. Men are not as important as the family-unit, but that doesn't make them anti-male.
Some scholars believe believed that the destruction of female gods by earlier civilizations in favor of a single male dominated religion made civilization more bloody, more violent, & more aggressive. Whatever caused societies to ignore whole elements of life is just a big mistake.
We've tried the Republican method and it doesn't do what it claims to do. Time to bring balance back before we strip the planet clean.
16
Under Democrats, the economy grew, on average, 4.35 percent per year; under Republicans, only 2.54 percent. It grew only 4.35% because Dems had to clean up the mess Republicans leave behind every time they are in power.16 or 24 years of Democratic rule would catapult this country past all other industrialized nations. 50% Americans=clueless. Voting against their own interest.
29
Great post!!!!
The job creation number paints too rosy a picture, because it leaves out population growth.
Between 2002, when Mr. Bush took office, and now the population of the US grew by 37.6 million. As roughly half of American are at work, this requires that the economy must generate about 18 million jobs, just to stay even.
This has not happened and is reflected in the labor participation rate, the fraction of Americans at work, that was 67.2% when Bush took office and now is 62.4%.
A smaller fraction of American now is at work, and a larger fraction of Americans look for work than under Bush.
Between 2002, when Mr. Bush took office, and now the population of the US grew by 37.6 million. As roughly half of American are at work, this requires that the economy must generate about 18 million jobs, just to stay even.
This has not happened and is reflected in the labor participation rate, the fraction of Americans at work, that was 67.2% when Bush took office and now is 62.4%.
A smaller fraction of American now is at work, and a larger fraction of Americans look for work than under Bush.
5
You are correct about looking at growth needed to match population growth, but your last statement stating that we had relatively more workers under Bush is incorrect.
Go to the St. Louis Fed site and look at private sector job growth for federal fiscal year budgets prepared by each president:
Clinton1: Oct93 to Sep01 Total Gain +20 million private sector jobs
Bush: Lost 2 million from Oct01 to Sep09, but needed +8 million to keep up with population growth, and so left Obama with a 10 million job hole.
Obama: Added +12.5 million, but only dug out of the Bush hole, and still needs about 3.5 million to catch up with population growth.
Obama could possibly could hit the important +18 million mark by the time his last FY2017 budget ends in Sep 2017. At that point Obama will have cleaned up Bush's mess and caught job growth up to population growth to achieve the nearly full employment level last achieved under Clinton1.
And this should set up Clinton2 to really grow our private sector, something the Democrats clearly do so much better than Republicans.
Go to the St. Louis Fed site and look at private sector job growth for federal fiscal year budgets prepared by each president:
Clinton1: Oct93 to Sep01 Total Gain +20 million private sector jobs
Bush: Lost 2 million from Oct01 to Sep09, but needed +8 million to keep up with population growth, and so left Obama with a 10 million job hole.
Obama: Added +12.5 million, but only dug out of the Bush hole, and still needs about 3.5 million to catch up with population growth.
Obama could possibly could hit the important +18 million mark by the time his last FY2017 budget ends in Sep 2017. At that point Obama will have cleaned up Bush's mess and caught job growth up to population growth to achieve the nearly full employment level last achieved under Clinton1.
And this should set up Clinton2 to really grow our private sector, something the Democrats clearly do so much better than Republicans.
12
You assume that all 37.6 million came from immigration of job age persons? Did Americans not have any babies between 2002 and today?
The Republican bubble is indeed impervious to fact or reason, thanks to the Fox News disinformation machine and a willfully abetting media. Because of this, many of my conservative friends are completely unaware of the fact that the lunatics we see in the GOP race are much further to the right than Lincoln, Eisenhower, Nixon, and St. Reagan himself. Even Bush 1, who used the term "Voodoo Economics" to describe the wage-theft and corporate domination of Reaganomics, understood that giving tax breaks to billionaires doesn't create jobs or growth.
Ask your conservative friends who first proposed universal health care (Nixon) or who said the following: "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws .. you would not hear of that party again" (Eisenhower).
Just last week, David Brooks called the tax proposals of the GOP "wildly unaffordable".
Norman Ornstein, a conservative from the American Enterprise Institute, says the modern GOP has become "an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition".
We cannot be cynical and lose hope. Let's bring our conservative friends back down to reality with facts and conversation, however inconvenient that might be for them. We must break the bubble.
Ask your conservative friends who first proposed universal health care (Nixon) or who said the following: "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws .. you would not hear of that party again" (Eisenhower).
Just last week, David Brooks called the tax proposals of the GOP "wildly unaffordable".
Norman Ornstein, a conservative from the American Enterprise Institute, says the modern GOP has become "an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition".
We cannot be cynical and lose hope. Let's bring our conservative friends back down to reality with facts and conversation, however inconvenient that might be for them. We must break the bubble.
29
My hardscrabble immigrant mother, English as a third language, with an education that stopped at the fourth grade, always said the Democrats were better simply because they spread money around more, more people had money to spend, and so there were more jobs, leading to more money being spread around, creating a virtuous circle, or what she termed a stew with more meat in it. The Republicans, she thought, sat on money like the dog in the manger.
If a woman with a fourth grade education can figure that out on her own, what is Fiorina's excuse?
If a woman with a fourth grade education can figure that out on her own, what is Fiorina's excuse?
149
The Republicans will not tax and spend to boost employment.
1
Your mother could very well be right.
If so, it might logically follow that the often scorned and disproven "trickle-down economics" could actually work as purported if more of the rich were Democrats instead of Republicans.
If so, it might logically follow that the often scorned and disproven "trickle-down economics" could actually work as purported if more of the rich were Democrats instead of Republicans.
A possible explanation for why the economy fares better under Democrats than under Republicans: Optimism.
Republicans are so pessimistic that even with their grand promises, the underlying message is negative and foreboding. They have to convince folk with lies and made-up statistics that they are less well-off than they actually are. Not an easy task as all the current Republican candidates are discovering.
"Without a vision, the people perish." However, with a negative vision, the people do themselves in.
Republicans are so pessimistic that even with their grand promises, the underlying message is negative and foreboding. They have to convince folk with lies and made-up statistics that they are less well-off than they actually are. Not an easy task as all the current Republican candidates are discovering.
"Without a vision, the people perish." However, with a negative vision, the people do themselves in.
14
Just add "the invisible hand" and "the American dream" to a positive "vision" and be done with it-because everything will turn out just fine!
We need something to replace Capitalism as it's played by the inside winners.
And, soon.
We need something to replace Capitalism as it's played by the inside winners.
And, soon.
You observe: "And the public wants to see Social Security expanded, not cut. So how can a politician sell the tax-cut agenda? The answer is, by promising those miracles, by insisting that tax cuts on high incomes would both pay for themselves and produce wonderful economic gains."
Tax cuts do produce economic gains...for the rich. The "trickle down" theory is as specious as it ever was, and those tax cuts don't translate into economic growth for the working classes.
Your key concept here is that people want Social Security expanded, mainly because, for the average person, the private sector is out of the pension business for its employees. Wages are low, and it's difficult for middle and lower income people to save enough for retirement..
The top one percent, of course, with their bonuses and favored tax status, can easily set aside enough money for their retirement years. With the reduction in the inheritance tax, their kids will likely have a comfortable retirement as well.
So maybe it's time for the Social Security tax to be taken out of earned at higher levels than currently--say up to a million dollars--and to plug loopholes in the tax laws that allow the very rich to take what is in fact earned income in ways that avoid the Social Security Tax and lower their income tax.
The rich make their money because average people work for their corporations and buy their products. Those average people should have better social security.
Tax cuts do produce economic gains...for the rich. The "trickle down" theory is as specious as it ever was, and those tax cuts don't translate into economic growth for the working classes.
Your key concept here is that people want Social Security expanded, mainly because, for the average person, the private sector is out of the pension business for its employees. Wages are low, and it's difficult for middle and lower income people to save enough for retirement..
The top one percent, of course, with their bonuses and favored tax status, can easily set aside enough money for their retirement years. With the reduction in the inheritance tax, their kids will likely have a comfortable retirement as well.
So maybe it's time for the Social Security tax to be taken out of earned at higher levels than currently--say up to a million dollars--and to plug loopholes in the tax laws that allow the very rich to take what is in fact earned income in ways that avoid the Social Security Tax and lower their income tax.
The rich make their money because average people work for their corporations and buy their products. Those average people should have better social security.
24
The writer knows perfectly well that from 1994-2000, Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with fiscal policy. All the budgets in those years were written by John Kasich.
Kasich also persuaded Clinton to reduce taxes on capital gains.
Thanks to Kasich and the Republican Congress, deficits were eliminated and we actually ran surpluses and retired Treasury debt. If Clinton had his way, none of this would have happened.
Kasich also persuaded Clinton to reduce taxes on capital gains.
Thanks to Kasich and the Republican Congress, deficits were eliminated and we actually ran surpluses and retired Treasury debt. If Clinton had his way, none of this would have happened.
1
Budgets got balanced in the 90's because first George H. W. Bush and then Clinton raised taxes. The writer of this comment must think everyone alive in the 90's has memory loss now. I remember quite clearly what went on. Republicans swore that Clinton's tax increases would wreck the economy - not in two years or two months or even two weeks, but as soon as the ink dried on Clinton's signature. Of course no such thing happened. And Kasich had virtually nothing to do with balancing the budget. This is the reality of what happened, not the GOP fantasy of this comment writer.
44
Really, and I presume therefore that the "Tax-cut ideologues" will stop blaming President Obama for the sluggish economic growth over the past few years. My bet is that if the president was not blocked or slowed by constant right-wing efforts to make him look bad, economic growth would have soared during his tenure. Hey the 1% guys should be happy anyway, the stock market has done just fine.
You're prepared to give more credit to the ranking Republican member of the House Budget Committee for proposing a reconciliation budget--which was DEFEATED 219-213 in the House--than the President of the United States for proposing and passing a budget in the '90s? This is precisely the kind of truthy (but not actually true) nonsense than can only exist inside the Republican bubble.
The research paper cited by Mr. Krugman is titled "Presidents and the U.S. Economy: An Econometric Exploration". It focuses on the single factor of the president's political affiliation. Mr. Krugman knows that the president has no legislative power but finds it fun to pretend that he does. It seems that Krugman wants to ignor congress - the institution which can actually change the rules because it is Krugman that does not want to fefend the $1.3 trillion in tax expenditures that have destroyed the tax code. There are hundreds of tax perks that become law by packageing pork for the left and right rather than getting rid of all of it. The problem is that most of the political donors give to both parties to maintain the status quo. Give to Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Green and the Big's will give to your campaign.
Krugman ought to be ashamed to suggest that one political party is better or worse than the other. Fiorina wants a three page tax code and Krugman needs to explain why that is so bad.
Krugman ought to be ashamed to suggest that one political party is better or worse than the other. Fiorina wants a three page tax code and Krugman needs to explain why that is so bad.
2
Krugman plainly stated: "Why is the Democratic record so much better? The short answer is that we don't know." I didn't come away with the notion that Democrats caused the better results and it could be coincidence, but the duration suggests otherwise. In any event, you also belittle the President's effect. Even in a situation where both houses of Congress are Republican, our current Democrat President has affected legislation by having and sometimes using the power of veto. And finally, a three page tax code is utter nonsense. I enjoy some of Mencken's wit such as "there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong." No, I don't agree with Mencken's politics, but you would. A vast and complex economy and the consequences of tax law on policy whether intended or not, require a somewhat complex tax code.
1
Mr. Krugman said that Republican presidential hopefuls' claims of saving the economy have no basis in fact. You did not refute this. And as far as Fiorina's "three page tax code" is concerned, Mr. Krugman has not said it is so bad, probably because she (like all the GOP candidates) has not given any details to go on. When we see the details then maybe we can see if (like all the other GOP tax proposals) it increases the deficit enormously.
Like Krugman you are beliving in a Democratic or Republican ECONOMIC record based on the party of the president.
"a three page tax code" is shorthand for eliminating tax expenditures (credits, deductions, deferrals, special rates and exemptions). The FairTax and some Flat Tax plans can do this.
You might even expand your thinking with a one paragraph tax reform:
Imagine an income tax with rates ranging from 8 to 28 percent where each taxpayer could chose the rate. Each income tax rate would be pared with a net wealth tax rate that would range from 2% down to 0 for the top 28% income rate. So for example a taxpayer could elect a 12% income tax rate and 1.5% net wealth tax rate or a 16% income tax rate and 1% wealth tax rate. To make the system fair and encourage appropriate life cycle savings, each taxpayer would be able to save up to $500,000 for retirement, education or health purposes - exempt of any wealth taxes. Any money paid in net wealth tax could be carried and used to offset estate and gift taxes set at a flat 28%. A 4% VAT and C corporation rate of just 8% is all that is needed for business tax reform.
Krugman, like all Democrats and most Republicans, is afraid to upset the applecart of tax expenditures.
"a three page tax code" is shorthand for eliminating tax expenditures (credits, deductions, deferrals, special rates and exemptions). The FairTax and some Flat Tax plans can do this.
You might even expand your thinking with a one paragraph tax reform:
Imagine an income tax with rates ranging from 8 to 28 percent where each taxpayer could chose the rate. Each income tax rate would be pared with a net wealth tax rate that would range from 2% down to 0 for the top 28% income rate. So for example a taxpayer could elect a 12% income tax rate and 1.5% net wealth tax rate or a 16% income tax rate and 1% wealth tax rate. To make the system fair and encourage appropriate life cycle savings, each taxpayer would be able to save up to $500,000 for retirement, education or health purposes - exempt of any wealth taxes. Any money paid in net wealth tax could be carried and used to offset estate and gift taxes set at a flat 28%. A 4% VAT and C corporation rate of just 8% is all that is needed for business tax reform.
Krugman, like all Democrats and most Republicans, is afraid to upset the applecart of tax expenditures.
1
Ms Fiorina, We need a president who understands how reality works. As a scientists and a lawyer, I will tell you that facts matter and are critically important. So long as Republicans make a fetish of ignoring the facts on issues from climate change to tax policy, from reproductive health to financial regulation, Republicans have no place laying any claim to having the wisdom and judgment required to be in government. Think Republican policies are good for the economy? Ask Kansas or Wisconsin what they think of that!
33
Hillary Clinton's comment echoes charts I recall seeing during the last presidential election, in 2012, and sure enough, economic reality has come to validate them, even the current recovery under President Obama *feels* as if it's less vibrant than others. But the failure of this administration to point out its successes AND to talk about one of the major reasons for the ongoing pain, the fiscal austerity imposed by the GOP Congress first through its blocking of ANY real major fiscal policies since the stimulus bill, has led many people to conclude that President Obama's record on job creation is as bad or worse than George W. Bush's. I just don't get President Obama's and his administration's silence on this.
On top of this, he has said almost nothing about the sequester and ongoing government austerity, or the fact that he has presided over the slashing of government jobs, which the GOP loves, but which also harms the economy (and there's been almost nothing about how George W. Bush INCREASED government jobs). Even you remain mostly silent about the ongoing austerity and its effects, though we thankfully have had smart and effective monetary policy, which has provided a stimulus, under Ben Bernanke, who just left the GOP because of its economic enumeracy, and Janet Yellen.
It's not that hard to make a case for what works and is working, and to point out what isn't. Epistemic closure can foster amid silence. The president and economists must speak out!
On top of this, he has said almost nothing about the sequester and ongoing government austerity, or the fact that he has presided over the slashing of government jobs, which the GOP loves, but which also harms the economy (and there's been almost nothing about how George W. Bush INCREASED government jobs). Even you remain mostly silent about the ongoing austerity and its effects, though we thankfully have had smart and effective monetary policy, which has provided a stimulus, under Ben Bernanke, who just left the GOP because of its economic enumeracy, and Janet Yellen.
It's not that hard to make a case for what works and is working, and to point out what isn't. Epistemic closure can foster amid silence. The president and economists must speak out!
13
Thank you so much for mentioning the favorable oil prices under Democrats. The multi-decades graph of oil prices is irrefutable proof. The importance of oil as the single biggest ingredient of our economy is very often overlooked.
2
A snippet of recent history shows that typical crude oil barrel prices ran about 20 dollars during the Clinton years and then began a rapid rise starting in 2003 under Bush until oil reached an economy crippling peak of 147 dollars in July 2008, precipitating the great recession, I believe, as indicated by a 25 percent decline in the S&P retail index in the vital holiday fourth quarter of that year. After the economy was crippled, millions of commuters lost their jobs thus resulting in reduced demand for oil products and a steep decline of oil prices from the peak. This reduction in oil prices probably contributed to a resurgence or recovery of the economy that has crept along for the last years under Obama, but then some oil company genius figured out Fracking that led to a boom in production that dramatically lowered prices these last two years. I anticipate a reflection of those lower prices in a more robust growing economy with gradually increased employment as has occurred with concurrent increased consumer spending. The recovery is slow but it is a recovery. Unemployment is lower than years back at a level I consider healthy and acceptable historically. With all due respect to President Obama, the credit this time goes to that genius who invented Fracking. The fact remains however that prices were always lower under Democrat Presidents.
Geez, this make one wonder what might have happened in 2003 to cause oil prices to go volatile?
Oh yeah,.....
Oh yeah,.....
There is a simple reason for the Democrats doing better then the Republicans. Dems use taxes to develop the country in general and society specifically. The money goes thru society proving jobs, opportunities, education, welfare, structured laws, and second chances. If the tax money goes to the rich, it goes for financial instruments, but doesn't produce jobs because people don't have the money to spend. It is evident in the fate of two states, California and Kansas. Kansas continues to take money out of the system, producing less and less opportunities and recycling so people have less to spend, so less tax dollars. It doesn't matter how low your taxes are if you don't have jobs or money to spend. In California they tax all the rich money at a higher rate and the money is used in the state for opportunities, education and then continues recycling in the society. All this money is taxed again and again and continues development.
Dems need to get a pair like they just did in Canada.
Dems need to get a pair like they just did in Canada.
24
So taxes are a perpetual motion machine of prosperity? Wow! Clearly we should increase tax rates to 100% on every dollar of everyone's income. Think of the prosperity that would create! As a resident of CA, i can tell you, they are working towards trying it here.
If we go all the way back to 1933, Dems do far better than GOP in every metric of the economy, including job and wage growth, corporate profit growth, stock market performance, GDP growth, and debt to GDP ratio trend. The GOP has a slick economic slogan, get the government off people's backs and cut taxes so we can unleash American business and entrepreneurs and prosperity will arise. This bumper sticker economics does not stand collision with the real world.
In the last 25 years, we ran as close to a controlled experiment in tax policy as you could get, with the Clinton tax increases of the 90's compared to the Bush tax cuts of the 00's. The GOP was certain Clinton's tax increase would tank the economy and Bush's tax cuts would lead to prosperity, but the result was the opposite. Clinton ran a surplus his last few years, Bush left office with a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit.
Because of their ideology, the GOP cannot have a flexible approach to policy. No matter what the circumstances of the economy, there is only one policy choice to pursue, cuts in marginal tax rates and capital gains.
I think what explains this difference is that Dems in general follow policies that promote more equitable income gains, and rising income among the 90% results in rising aggregate demand that boosts the entire economy. Under the GOP, policies favor the rich, who are too few to fuel economy wide prosperity, as they save most of the extra income.
In the last 25 years, we ran as close to a controlled experiment in tax policy as you could get, with the Clinton tax increases of the 90's compared to the Bush tax cuts of the 00's. The GOP was certain Clinton's tax increase would tank the economy and Bush's tax cuts would lead to prosperity, but the result was the opposite. Clinton ran a surplus his last few years, Bush left office with a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit.
Because of their ideology, the GOP cannot have a flexible approach to policy. No matter what the circumstances of the economy, there is only one policy choice to pursue, cuts in marginal tax rates and capital gains.
I think what explains this difference is that Dems in general follow policies that promote more equitable income gains, and rising income among the 90% results in rising aggregate demand that boosts the entire economy. Under the GOP, policies favor the rich, who are too few to fuel economy wide prosperity, as they save most of the extra income.
14
In addition to the growth discrepancies that Paul Krugman states here, I'd like to add that the federal debt, since 1976, measured from inauguration day to inauguration day, has risen about twice as fast, on a percentage basis, when a Republican has been president as when a Democrat has been president. So not only are the growth discussions not based in reality neither is the concerns raised about the federal debt.
4
Could the cause for this rise in debt be that the Republicans are more likely to get us into an armed conflict where the real reason is the protection of the assets of multinational corporations, many not even based in the USA.
7
I blame government policy and the fact that government programs tend to look like Rube Goldberg Machines creating budget strains that could never be imagined when creating such monstrosities?
Dr. Krugman is a wonk with superb grounding in the discipline of economics, writing & making a point without distorting the truth.
He caught my attention with this statement, "There’s no indication that the Democratic advantage can be explained by better monetary and fiscal policies. Democrats seem, on average, to have had better luck than Republicans on oil prices and technological progress."
Truth is told.
If one takes the long-view, a large determinant in human success is technology, (not just the current digital revolution but the discovery of fire, cooking, wheels, language, writing, internal combustion engines, electro-magnetism, etc.), and its impact on the standard of living for our species. Cooked food was better for our brains than raw meat, nuts, fruits and vegetables. Clearly, large brains have made homo sapiens the dominant species of the biosphere.
Homo sapiens leap-frogged into the future with the invention of fossil fuel technologies. Our surge in average life span & population is proof that fossil fuel tech is the driver.
The problem is the combustion of fossil fuels generate gases that cause the atmosphere to trap the sun's heat & warm the Earth, acidify oceans, threaten the food supply of our species, not to mention catastrophically destructive weather that harms the economy.
This reality has been officially denied by the GOP.
Thus far, neither party wants to lead in the Maglev technology, space-based solar, or synthetic fuel from air & water.
He caught my attention with this statement, "There’s no indication that the Democratic advantage can be explained by better monetary and fiscal policies. Democrats seem, on average, to have had better luck than Republicans on oil prices and technological progress."
Truth is told.
If one takes the long-view, a large determinant in human success is technology, (not just the current digital revolution but the discovery of fire, cooking, wheels, language, writing, internal combustion engines, electro-magnetism, etc.), and its impact on the standard of living for our species. Cooked food was better for our brains than raw meat, nuts, fruits and vegetables. Clearly, large brains have made homo sapiens the dominant species of the biosphere.
Homo sapiens leap-frogged into the future with the invention of fossil fuel technologies. Our surge in average life span & population is proof that fossil fuel tech is the driver.
The problem is the combustion of fossil fuels generate gases that cause the atmosphere to trap the sun's heat & warm the Earth, acidify oceans, threaten the food supply of our species, not to mention catastrophically destructive weather that harms the economy.
This reality has been officially denied by the GOP.
Thus far, neither party wants to lead in the Maglev technology, space-based solar, or synthetic fuel from air & water.
6
Republicans constantly boast about their mythical ability to deliver economic growth because that is what their marketing teams tell them to do. Republicans have always taken the easy path to power and riches: pander to those already wealthy and powerful. Not surprisingly, this platform doesn't play so well in a democracy where many voters are living paycheck to paycheck.
This has let to Republicans and their allies spending billions on think-tanks to create the Big Lie. Its goal is to create pseudo-logical reasoning that supports policies that would benefit the wealthy; crushing unions, eliminating social programs, lowing capital gains and estate taxes, etc.
What polled higher on any survey in the country during the last six years? Job growth. It turns out the little people hate being unemployed and losing their homes. Once this talking point was identified it was beaten to death in every media opportunity that the Republicans had.
Another spin token is "small business". Everyone in America loves the gutsy mom & pop local store with its personal service and hard work; Exxon.....not so much. If we were all playing a drinking game where we took a shot every time a Republican said "small business" we would all have died of alcohol poisoning by early 2009.
All Republican communication in the media is propaganda spin. They have learned that when they ad-lib and go off message they usually get crucified.
This has let to Republicans and their allies spending billions on think-tanks to create the Big Lie. Its goal is to create pseudo-logical reasoning that supports policies that would benefit the wealthy; crushing unions, eliminating social programs, lowing capital gains and estate taxes, etc.
What polled higher on any survey in the country during the last six years? Job growth. It turns out the little people hate being unemployed and losing their homes. Once this talking point was identified it was beaten to death in every media opportunity that the Republicans had.
Another spin token is "small business". Everyone in America loves the gutsy mom & pop local store with its personal service and hard work; Exxon.....not so much. If we were all playing a drinking game where we took a shot every time a Republican said "small business" we would all have died of alcohol poisoning by early 2009.
All Republican communication in the media is propaganda spin. They have learned that when they ad-lib and go off message they usually get crucified.
9
GOP remains confident about their incompetence. They still love supply-side economics with its tax cuts for the tax haven x-mas club crowd. I got stuck at the car dealership for a number of hours last week while they replaced my air bags. The lounge area had Fox TV playing, even the commercials are fear-mongering litanies. It felt like a different info-sphere listening to FOX news. They are very,very upset about the war on christians because some football coach was told not to pray on public property with public school children.
If the Obama administration had not bailed out the auto industry, the Bush Reession would have been a lot worse. The GOP opposes those types of economic interventions and chant about the solar company that failed insted of the Chevy they still drive.
If the Obama administration had not bailed out the auto industry, the Bush Reession would have been a lot worse. The GOP opposes those types of economic interventions and chant about the solar company that failed insted of the Chevy they still drive.
11
If only we had a mainstream media that was more interested in reporting facts over entertainment, and wasn't afraid of being called "Liberal".
If only the Democratic party had a spine and was able to forcefully and unapologetically advocate its policies. (At least we have Bernie!)
If only we had a government that wasn't corrupted by the powerful financial interests of the few.
If only the American people were engaged enough to see through Republican lies, and were engaged enough to never to skip an election, no matter how small.
If only the Democratic party had a spine and was able to forcefully and unapologetically advocate its policies. (At least we have Bernie!)
If only we had a government that wasn't corrupted by the powerful financial interests of the few.
If only the American people were engaged enough to see through Republican lies, and were engaged enough to never to skip an election, no matter how small.
10
Education, or lack of it, for far too many people, explains a lot of this. "Engaged" by itself is not the problem: extremists are "engaged" and there's no reason to think they are less intelligent than the rest of the world, but they thrive on group think, and the only antidote to that is a grounding in the basics of reasoning, political civility, mutual respect, and even, heaven help us, economics. The poorest people, and even those with limited formal education, often understand the world quite well, but may be inarticulate or lack the confidence in their own understanding that a decent education could help provide.
Why only calculate since 1947?
Why not since 1933?
In any event, is the US President the person who alone guides the entire 50 state economy?
Does Congress not have a role here? I recall the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress jump started the economy during Clinton's first term.
Why not since 1933?
In any event, is the US President the person who alone guides the entire 50 state economy?
Does Congress not have a role here? I recall the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress jump started the economy during Clinton's first term.
2
If you're gonna go back to 1932, might I suggest instead, say 1928? 1947 is the post-war period. Including WW2, something completely unusual economically, would be a poor comparison. However, if you really wanna take it back that far...
http://visualeconsite.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/RealGDPperCapi...
You'll notice that the two largest downturns happened on the Republicans watch, and after 8 years of republican leadership. Dude, you can't win this argument. The data's the data. You should be glad he's not actually blaming the republicans.
Really, you're gonna argue it's congress? Didn't they shut down the government over the budget, finally having to give in to the Clinton balanced budget with no giant tax cuts for rich people budget?
But ok, fine, we'll take you're argument. So the repubs have the congress but god forbid they get the presidency.
http://visualeconsite.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/RealGDPperCapi...
You'll notice that the two largest downturns happened on the Republicans watch, and after 8 years of republican leadership. Dude, you can't win this argument. The data's the data. You should be glad he's not actually blaming the republicans.
Really, you're gonna argue it's congress? Didn't they shut down the government over the budget, finally having to give in to the Clinton balanced budget with no giant tax cuts for rich people budget?
But ok, fine, we'll take you're argument. So the repubs have the congress but god forbid they get the presidency.
Elites stoke our economic insecurities and then promise"savior" economics. First, we credit those above us because somehow they know how to do it. We want what they have. Then, they spin myths of blame directed towards those undeserving takers (welfare queen) followed by myths of glory achieved by the ranks of us (Horatio Alger). We shame the lower and exalt the upper. Comfortable myth in good times becomes solid delusion in bad ones ("There are no atheists in foxholes.") But when we finally see our hemorrhaging middle and amputated lower, the myth dies as we die, and we cry out for the mending love we almost forgot. We're almost there. I hope.
1
The argument that we should only support candidates who propose policies that can pass the Tea Party controlled House is an argument for surrender to the corporate oligarchy who have gerrymandered Congress and filled the airwaves with demagogues.
The key to electing more Democrats, if that is your measure, is increasing turnout amongst core Democratic constituencies, in particular youth, people of color and the poor. The key to doing THAT is speaking forcefully to the concerns of theirs that are routinely ignored by BOTH parties when in office.
Sanders is not promising that the policies he proposes will be won easily. On the contrary, he insists at every opportunity that it will require constant organization and mobilization after the elections as well as before.
I seriously doubt that Sanders can win the Democratic nomination. Not because he couldn't win a fair fight with Clinton, but rather because the game is rigged in favor of Wall Street and he will be eviscerated by the capitalist media if he does well enough in the early primaries to represent a real threat to the 1%'s already clearly preferred candidate.
I will vote for him anyway, because I know you can't win if you don't fight, and that the only way to get to the point where you can win is by fighting and losing first. If Sanders doesn't get the nomination I will not be voting for Clinton in the general election. I will vote for a Green or a socialist. My days of voting for 1%ers are over.
The key to electing more Democrats, if that is your measure, is increasing turnout amongst core Democratic constituencies, in particular youth, people of color and the poor. The key to doing THAT is speaking forcefully to the concerns of theirs that are routinely ignored by BOTH parties when in office.
Sanders is not promising that the policies he proposes will be won easily. On the contrary, he insists at every opportunity that it will require constant organization and mobilization after the elections as well as before.
I seriously doubt that Sanders can win the Democratic nomination. Not because he couldn't win a fair fight with Clinton, but rather because the game is rigged in favor of Wall Street and he will be eviscerated by the capitalist media if he does well enough in the early primaries to represent a real threat to the 1%'s already clearly preferred candidate.
I will vote for him anyway, because I know you can't win if you don't fight, and that the only way to get to the point where you can win is by fighting and losing first. If Sanders doesn't get the nomination I will not be voting for Clinton in the general election. I will vote for a Green or a socialist. My days of voting for 1%ers are over.
6
And one more vote goes by default to the Republicans. But you've maintained your purity, and isn't that more important?
Well duh, didn't you learn anything from Ralph Nader's presidential chimera? Voting for a green or a socialist is playing right into the GOP playbook and is effectively a vote for a Republican victory. Bernie is playing a critical role in the Democratic primaries, pushing Hillary leftward whether he gets the nomination or not. I doubt he could win against the GOP, and I don't want him to get the nomination for that reason. But if he gets the nomination I'll be out organizing and ringing doorbells and voting for him. Your all or nothing attitude sounds more like the freedom caucus tea party GOP extremists, not like the Democratic Party.
Please remember, when you go to vote for a Green or a socialist, that your vote is a protest vote that will help the Republicans. If RBG retires under a Republican president, another Scalia or Alito will be put in her place. Citizens United will continue; Roe v Wade will be overturned. Things will get decidedly worse. I would also prefer not to have a 1%er, but let's not allow the Republicans to finish their destruction of our country. At least Hillary is a feminist.
T would suspect that Democrats do better with the economy because their policies tend to be pragmatic, assort of "whatever works" approach based on the times and conditions that prevail. Republicans tends toward rigid ideology that satisfies them psychologically and culturally but has no basis in fact.
8
Interesting. Politicians in general out-promise things just to get elected. They speak from both sides of their mouth. Accordingly, any well educated individual, attentive to the political spectrum, and the economic developments, ought to be able to draw judgement by careful study of diverse sources of information, and then draw conclusions that conform to reality. Insofar the G.O.P. is concerned, its adherents are usually fact-deficient, fantasy-prone, partly because they listen only to what conforms with their ideology, if any, such as Fox Noise and charlatans in radio (Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc) who make their living as agitators. Suffice it to say that our current crop of rabble-rousers, especially those that can express themselves well (Rubio, Cruz), seem to be able to thrive on public's anger (and fears of being left behind), and plant half-truths on issues they know little, if any, and blaming the other party for their own shortcomings.
3
Paul, are you suggesting that political party economic successes (and failures) are primarily graded and determined by the evening news?
There is a sad disparity here in that the Republicans boast of their economic plans and the Democrats don't seem to bother to offer answers and at this time in our history, the loudest mouth is far more often heard, despite the content of its utterances.
The debates have pointed out the stupidity and pointlessness of working with bent media but nothing seems to change even though the Republicans are yelling and stamping their feet.
There is a sad disparity here in that the Republicans boast of their economic plans and the Democrats don't seem to bother to offer answers and at this time in our history, the loudest mouth is far more often heard, despite the content of its utterances.
The debates have pointed out the stupidity and pointlessness of working with bent media but nothing seems to change even though the Republicans are yelling and stamping their feet.
2
So what? As long as the American right is allowed to lie at will, America will deserve the putrid, devolving country it's getting. Those who are allowing the lying -- Democrats, their supporters, mainstream media, -- instead of matching the lies with equal volume and intensity with the truth, are just as culpable as the liars themselves.
Anybody have any doubts as to how major media will deal with Republican whining on "debate" questions? If so, they haven't been paying attention. The media will tuck its collective tail, then yelp and whimper like a beat dog.
Anybody have any doubts as to how major media will deal with Republican whining on "debate" questions? If so, they haven't been paying attention. The media will tuck its collective tail, then yelp and whimper like a beat dog.
12
It's the partisan fact/reality gaps that are truly disturbing. Climate change is the greatest existential threat to humanity and Republicans generally deny its existence.
Without facts, you have to rely on emotions like racism, sexism, and fear. Democrats are going to take your guns and give away your money to Those People....
Meanwhile, back on planet America, more Americans are dying due to our rotting infrastructure than terrorism day in and day out.
Without facts, you have to rely on emotions like racism, sexism, and fear. Democrats are going to take your guns and give away your money to Those People....
Meanwhile, back on planet America, more Americans are dying due to our rotting infrastructure than terrorism day in and day out.
8
In reply to Robert Salzberg - Climate change, under it's most serious interpretation of it's most knowledgeable predictors, has never been considered an "existential threat." The climate becomes horrendous, we live through it with dimished comfort. This is not Black Plague or nuclear winter.
It threatens to ruin the ecological balance we now enjoy, it does not threaten mankind or society as a whole. It is indeed the current super fad for Outrage Hobbyists hence your hyperbole will go unchallenged. But note that you never hear a one Outrage Hobbyist propose we prepare for "some" climate change, which no matter how well they prompt policy change, is sure to befall us.
Drug abuse, militarism, wealth disparity, and religion each pose a more onerous threat to human progress. Problems are generally not accurately ranked by the popularity of the movement against them.
It threatens to ruin the ecological balance we now enjoy, it does not threaten mankind or society as a whole. It is indeed the current super fad for Outrage Hobbyists hence your hyperbole will go unchallenged. But note that you never hear a one Outrage Hobbyist propose we prepare for "some" climate change, which no matter how well they prompt policy change, is sure to befall us.
Drug abuse, militarism, wealth disparity, and religion each pose a more onerous threat to human progress. Problems are generally not accurately ranked by the popularity of the movement against them.
The story on the melting of Greenland noted that Republicans are trying to keep scientists from gathering data on what is happening up there. But even if global warming were simply an act of nature, shouldn't we be prepared for the eventual flooding of coastal cities and other low-lying places?
4
No! To prepare is to admit defeat, sleep with the enemy, and take the glory out of, and douse the cache' of, the outrage hobby!
As professor Krugman should know, the sample size in the Blinder and Watson study is far too small for sound generalizations. Further, it is congress–not the president–that has primary authority for the budget.
The independent variable in his analysis should be: Which party controls congress. How does this correlate with the dependent variable: Economic well-being?
This at least increases sample size to N=35 (since 1947), significantly higher than the number of presidencies (N=9). Probably any correlation would be low, but it might dissuade partisans–both Krugman and various Republican hopefuls–from cherry-picking their evidence.
The independent variable in his analysis should be: Which party controls congress. How does this correlate with the dependent variable: Economic well-being?
This at least increases sample size to N=35 (since 1947), significantly higher than the number of presidencies (N=9). Probably any correlation would be low, but it might dissuade partisans–both Krugman and various Republican hopefuls–from cherry-picking their evidence.
5
yours is off base. he showed real skepticism about a solid answer, but simply pointed out the absurdity of republicans claiming economic success.
MKB, I don't really think your assertions are sound statistically. If N=9 people or N=35 people, then either would represent a small sample size. What you are missing here is that the sample size reflects not people (neither the party control of congress or the presidency) but months or, more likely, quarters of statistical economic data, 66 years of data if the inclusive years were 1947-2013, or 65 years of data if the years were 1947-2012, which is more likely. 280 quarters of data are certainly a large enough sample size to determine trends. All Blinder and Watson studied was the economic data for these quarters charted against the party that controlled the presidency during each of those quarters. They were comparing economic policy, just relating the trends based on the raw economic data. They were not analyzing specific policies which may have lead to either upturns or downturns in economic growth.
As Krugman points out in the article, no one can explain why this is so. The data, however, do not lie and have not been cherry picked. It is a constant stream of data for 65 years.
As Krugman points out in the article, no one can explain why this is so. The data, however, do not lie and have not been cherry picked. It is a constant stream of data for 65 years.
"Under Democrats, the economy grew, on average, 4.35 percent per year; under Republicans, only 2.54 percent. Over the whole period, the economy was in recession for 49 quarters; Democrats held the White House during only eight of those quarters."
This is a great column because Dr. Krugman has the guts to say he doesn't know why the economy has done so much better under Democratic presidents. And since we don't know, when Republicans attack Democrats as being anti-business and pro-regulation, watch out.
Dr. Carson, for example, asked his position on greedy drug entrepreneurs who purchase older products and relaunch them at sky high prices, simply went into a rant against regulations. But regulations aren't the problem: deregulation, resulting in capitalism run amok, is.
And under the GOP you are more likely to see capitalism run riot. From the great Depression to the Savings and Loan Crisis and junk bonds, to the Great Toxic Mortgage debacle, it's clear that deregulation--not regulation--fueled economic free fall.
They say that voters vote with their pocketbook. The economy may be good, but many sectors are bad, and the GOP won't let anybody forget it. But the joke is that their standard solution of trickle down tax cuts have never ever come to pass. But it sure sounds good and that's what folks believe.
Sanders is right when he talks about the great wealth transfer from the bottom upward. After all, donors are first in line when economic decisions are made.
This is a great column because Dr. Krugman has the guts to say he doesn't know why the economy has done so much better under Democratic presidents. And since we don't know, when Republicans attack Democrats as being anti-business and pro-regulation, watch out.
Dr. Carson, for example, asked his position on greedy drug entrepreneurs who purchase older products and relaunch them at sky high prices, simply went into a rant against regulations. But regulations aren't the problem: deregulation, resulting in capitalism run amok, is.
And under the GOP you are more likely to see capitalism run riot. From the great Depression to the Savings and Loan Crisis and junk bonds, to the Great Toxic Mortgage debacle, it's clear that deregulation--not regulation--fueled economic free fall.
They say that voters vote with their pocketbook. The economy may be good, but many sectors are bad, and the GOP won't let anybody forget it. But the joke is that their standard solution of trickle down tax cuts have never ever come to pass. But it sure sounds good and that's what folks believe.
Sanders is right when he talks about the great wealth transfer from the bottom upward. After all, donors are first in line when economic decisions are made.
18
"modern conservatives generally live in a bubble into which inconvenient facts can’t penetrate"
That gives them too much credit. They do know. They just lie.
Promising miracles is lying too.
There is no reason to let them off the hook, as if they were wayward children who just don't know. They know.
They are entirely cynical about it. They are the worst sort of liars.
That gives them too much credit. They do know. They just lie.
Promising miracles is lying too.
There is no reason to let them off the hook, as if they were wayward children who just don't know. They know.
They are entirely cynical about it. They are the worst sort of liars.
46
The problem for democrats is that despite the fantasy they sell, just as Obama did, that democrats' tax increases will *only* affect the rich, the middle class eventually find themselves with too high a tax burden and elect republicans to get some relief.
5
@AACNY
NY
And the election of those Republicans produces inferior economic performance as detailed in this article (which of course you ignore) and occasional disasters like 1929-32 and 2007-9, and those currently unfolding in KS and LA.
NY
And the election of those Republicans produces inferior economic performance as detailed in this article (which of course you ignore) and occasional disasters like 1929-32 and 2007-9, and those currently unfolding in KS and LA.
20
Your correct in your assessment, but not in the result. Federal Tax cuts are in the end a shell game. The Federal government cuts taxes (mostly for the rich these days). but that results in a chain reaction down the government line. The States get less because the Congress gave them less, they cuts their budgets and/or raise the state sales tax (if they have one). this results in the Counties getting less from the State. Then the counties do the only thing they can do, they raise property taxes to afford the local programs (and schools) that people want. This results in higher rents, mortgage payment, etc. There is no real refief.
6
Just like in Kansas, right?!? There is the perfect example of Republican tax cut policy, and look how well that's worked out for the citizens of Kansas.
1
Republicans are better at manipulating reality than Democrats in that they continually refuse to admit to themselves that they are doing so. It helps to explain election results that put our nation in a continuous feedback loop of boom and bust, continuous war and rule by people who live in little boxes that are in their heads as well.
37
Republicans have bigger blowhorns!
Publishers are, more often than not, devout Republicans. Editors and reporters are often more liberal, with the exception of the Wall Street Journal and other conservative papers that culled its liberals decades ago. This leaves editors and reporters constantly looking over their shoulder.
Publishers are, more often than not, devout Republicans. Editors and reporters are often more liberal, with the exception of the Wall Street Journal and other conservative papers that culled its liberals decades ago. This leaves editors and reporters constantly looking over their shoulder.
1
How is the comparison done between economic growth under Democratics vs. growth under Republicans? I admit to knowing nothing about measuring this--but if a new administration of the other party enacts policy changes, doesn't it logically take months, even years, for the better (or worse) outcome of those changes to happen and be revealed? In other words, do economists build an accepted delay factor into these measurements? For example, just to make it up, Obama's changes might be measured from 2010 to 2018, a delay of two years.
10
Prof. Krugman would like us to believe that it's only democrats who should take credit because they are in office when something happens but, of course, not only do their policies take years to take effect but also they always have republicans tempering their spending. (Imagine a democratic president without republicans to temper his spending?)
One example is that Clinton balanced the budget.*
*****
*"No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance the Budget",
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-bill-clinton-didnt-balanc...
One example is that Clinton balanced the budget.*
*****
*"No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance the Budget",
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-bill-clinton-didnt-balanc...
2
AACNY
NY
This is propaganda smoke and mirrors from a Republican think tank. As is well known Clinton won the tax and spend wars of the 90's hands down. Had the Clinton era been one of failure rather than huge success we can be sure that Cato would be assigning the blame to him but of course he had nothing to do with the achievement of success. I don't see them rushing to give the credit for the growth of the Reagan years to the Democratic controlled house. LOL
NY
This is propaganda smoke and mirrors from a Republican think tank. As is well known Clinton won the tax and spend wars of the 90's hands down. Had the Clinton era been one of failure rather than huge success we can be sure that Cato would be assigning the blame to him but of course he had nothing to do with the achievement of success. I don't see them rushing to give the credit for the growth of the Reagan years to the Democratic controlled house. LOL
18
"(Imagine a democratic president without republicans to temper his spending?)"
Oh my AACNY, I'm afraid you've opened up a whole avenue for attack there.
First, without the Republican nut jobs in Congress who oppose any Obama policy we would have had a jobs bill that provided government contracts to rebuild the nation's crumbling infrastructure.
Second, government spending is what is necessary in a recession (ask the Nobel Laureate who writes this column). So without the Republican Congress we would likely have had a stronger recovery.
Third, Despite high deficits at the beginning of his Presidency to overcome the recession left to him by Bush, deficits have been going down in part because Obama forced through a modest tax increase on the wealthy and spending cuts (which the Republican's in Congress have been trying to subvert recently to increase military spending in an "off budget "way).
Fourth, the notion that Republican administrations are more fiscally prudent is just not born out by the numbers -- Reagan tripled the deficit to around 4 trillion, Bush doubled it to around 11 trillion.
Fifth, we know what we get when we elect a Republican President untempered by a Democratic Congress because that's what we had under Bush. Results, double the national debt, soaring gap between rich and poor, shrinking middle class, expensive foreign wars, mediocre economic growth followed by economic collapse. Why would we want that again?
Oh my AACNY, I'm afraid you've opened up a whole avenue for attack there.
First, without the Republican nut jobs in Congress who oppose any Obama policy we would have had a jobs bill that provided government contracts to rebuild the nation's crumbling infrastructure.
Second, government spending is what is necessary in a recession (ask the Nobel Laureate who writes this column). So without the Republican Congress we would likely have had a stronger recovery.
Third, Despite high deficits at the beginning of his Presidency to overcome the recession left to him by Bush, deficits have been going down in part because Obama forced through a modest tax increase on the wealthy and spending cuts (which the Republican's in Congress have been trying to subvert recently to increase military spending in an "off budget "way).
Fourth, the notion that Republican administrations are more fiscally prudent is just not born out by the numbers -- Reagan tripled the deficit to around 4 trillion, Bush doubled it to around 11 trillion.
Fifth, we know what we get when we elect a Republican President untempered by a Democratic Congress because that's what we had under Bush. Results, double the national debt, soaring gap between rich and poor, shrinking middle class, expensive foreign wars, mediocre economic growth followed by economic collapse. Why would we want that again?
2
Outstanding column. Very good to have the Republican and Democratic economic growth figures compared. It is surprising, though, that the disparity can't be linked to differences in fiscal and monetary policy.
A follow-up question: are the metrics better for Democratic administrations with respect to unemployment, household income (in inflation-adjusted dollars) and other economic metrics?
A follow-up question: are the metrics better for Democratic administrations with respect to unemployment, household income (in inflation-adjusted dollars) and other economic metrics?
14
good point netliner, case in point, the fed keeping interest rates at almost zero for Obama's two terms...not to mention their QE umpteen handing out free money to wall street. think that may have had a small impact on the economy.
1
But surely you've just explained why the GDP grows more under Democrats: higher taxes.
Do a reductio ad absurdam. 100% tax rate is a growth killer. Zero tax rate is a growth killer. It follows logically that in between 0 and 100 there is an optimum rate of taxes where GDP growth is highest, all else equal. The Democrats seem to know better where that sweet spot is. Higher taxes on the wealthy means more money in the pockets of the middle class, which results in more spending on washing machines and automobiles.
The middle class is the engine of consumption, and, as Keynes pointed out, consumption is the sole purpose of an economy. Destroy the middle class and you destroy the economy.
Do a reductio ad absurdam. 100% tax rate is a growth killer. Zero tax rate is a growth killer. It follows logically that in between 0 and 100 there is an optimum rate of taxes where GDP growth is highest, all else equal. The Democrats seem to know better where that sweet spot is. Higher taxes on the wealthy means more money in the pockets of the middle class, which results in more spending on washing machines and automobiles.
The middle class is the engine of consumption, and, as Keynes pointed out, consumption is the sole purpose of an economy. Destroy the middle class and you destroy the economy.
61
"The Democrats seem to know better where that sweet spot is."
***
They know no such thing. They are dragged kicking and screaming to deals with republicans on spending.
***
They know no such thing. They are dragged kicking and screaming to deals with republicans on spending.
3
AACNY
NY
Which of course has actually stunted growth over the last few years as Bernanke points out. The unwillingness of Republicans in congress to behave sensibly in economic matters has caused him to abandon his lifelong membership of the party. He christens it know nothing-ism of which you are a perfect representative.
NY
Which of course has actually stunted growth over the last few years as Bernanke points out. The unwillingness of Republicans in congress to behave sensibly in economic matters has caused him to abandon his lifelong membership of the party. He christens it know nothing-ism of which you are a perfect representative.
14
What "deals"?? The words "deal" and "compromise" are anathema to today's republican party. These people don't want to govern. They want to come up with more and more ways to thwart the will of the actual majority.
Why anyone would want to put people that believe government can do nothing right (aside from defense spending) in control of said government is a mystery to me.
Why anyone would want to put people that believe government can do nothing right (aside from defense spending) in control of said government is a mystery to me.
2
By any Republican measure, real or fancied, President Obama's stewardship of the American economy has been a total failure. When you begin with nothing [January 20, 2009] and orchestrate a deficit into a positive, a slow but steady job growth of 8-10 million additional jobs following W's financial meltdown, any reasonable observer would, if honest, make a generous assumption of progress. For example, gasoline is at levels [$2.09 where I live, lower elsewhere] not seen since the Clinton years. Newt Gingrich, in 2012, disparaged the president as being responsible for the fluctuating performance of the price at the pump. "I'll get it down to $2.50," he snarled. Yet it's a lot less than that now and Republicans continue to blame the president where little is warranted, but they will baldly claim credit when it's in their dishonest interest to do so. Republicans have succeeded, for generations, at exam time, in looking over the shoulders of the bright students sitting in front of them, then passing off another's work as their own! Nine GOP presidencies to seven Democrats since 1947 is proof that ignorance is the lifeblood and pulse of our country. We believe what the rich tell us because they have it and we don't. They convince us that money is the mark of a superior being; that the moral imperative, the principle of right dealing is a page from the boogey man, Karl Marx. That's the Right's "gotcha!" From Nixon through Reagan through H.W. and W., it works almost every time.
34
Your memory is short, and rather slanted. I drove from Ohio to Florida, in 2001, just before 9/11 (August) and the price of gasoline all along the way was approximately 97 cents a gallon. Yes, you read that correctly. It was less than a dollar a gallon, or less than half what it is today. Of course, 9/11 changed everything dramatically. But the price of gas was actually lower under Bush for significant periods of time, and under Obama, it has been as high was $4.50 a gallon! The current low prices might very well not last much longer and if looked at over the 7 years of the Obama Administration, they are not typical.
All correct, as far as Prof. K went. But he left out the BIG LIE. That is the constant claim that Social Security (oh, and of course Medicare, veterans benefits, etc.) is Unsustainable and can ONLY be saved by imposing severe cuts on payments to current recipients and/or future generations.
That would be true of revenues could only remain constant. However, any increase in tax revenues, whether from the 0,1%ers or from all workers and employers, would extend or fully fund these programs for the foreseeable future.
So the key premise of the BIG LIE is that we CANNOT raise taxes, even if the revenue generated goes right back into the economy as do S.S., Medicare, health care, veterans' care, etc. That money 'trickles down' in a flood of spending that pays rents and mortgages, buys food, oil, and gas, clothing, medical care, entertainment, and even high speed internet. And my subscription to the NYTimes.
There is nothing wrong with paying taxes if we are getting our money's worth. These programs are some of the best values our government has ever given our society. They are worth raising taxes to preserve and expand. These programs grow the economy and create jobs. Maybe that is why the economy does better under a party that protects them.
That would be true of revenues could only remain constant. However, any increase in tax revenues, whether from the 0,1%ers or from all workers and employers, would extend or fully fund these programs for the foreseeable future.
So the key premise of the BIG LIE is that we CANNOT raise taxes, even if the revenue generated goes right back into the economy as do S.S., Medicare, health care, veterans' care, etc. That money 'trickles down' in a flood of spending that pays rents and mortgages, buys food, oil, and gas, clothing, medical care, entertainment, and even high speed internet. And my subscription to the NYTimes.
There is nothing wrong with paying taxes if we are getting our money's worth. These programs are some of the best values our government has ever given our society. They are worth raising taxes to preserve and expand. These programs grow the economy and create jobs. Maybe that is why the economy does better under a party that protects them.
186
Ben you are correct. But consider that taxing and then spending while it does provide us with the necessities of government, it does NOT add any new money to the private sector. As the economy grows, it NEEDS more and more money to conduct commerce.
Where should it come from and how should it get into the private sector?
Where should it come from and how should it get into the private sector?
The BIG LIE is that Social Security contributes to the deficit. It never has, but the SS SURPLUS has been used to fund discretionary spending every year. And then Republicans squeal that the Treasury bonds used to buy that surplus are just IOU's and won't be repaid. They should tell it to China and other investor in US debt. They can't cause that would crash the economy and demonstrate that the US under GOP control is just another banana republic.
1
Timing and Trade - The Democrats like Bill Clinton definitely did much better in regard to timing. He came in after a painful recession, enjoyed the rebound and missed much of the .COM bust that resulted in economic lethargy at the beginning of the GW Bush administration. That being said, what does either party really do for the economy? Tax cuts from the GOP are an economic failure except for the 1%. Interestingly it's the Democratic administrations that have successfully lead in trade policy. The TPP now under Obama and NAFTA under Clinton are obvious economic achievements that helped US growth. The irony is that these job creating trade initiatives have been done in spite of opposition from the Democratic party itself.
4
@ Kevin
So like Napoleon you ask is he lucky? On the other hand you make your own luck to some extent. Clinton's economic team dodged some notable bullets like the Mexican debt crisis and the LTCM bust, and got the deficit back under control. On trade deals while the Democratic party is generally internationalist it's not entirely free of delusions. I don't entirely agree with Krugman's suggestion that we don't know why Democrats have a better record than Republicans. One could write a long paper on this but ultimately it comes down to preferring pragmatism over ideology in economic matters.
So like Napoleon you ask is he lucky? On the other hand you make your own luck to some extent. Clinton's economic team dodged some notable bullets like the Mexican debt crisis and the LTCM bust, and got the deficit back under control. On trade deals while the Democratic party is generally internationalist it's not entirely free of delusions. I don't entirely agree with Krugman's suggestion that we don't know why Democrats have a better record than Republicans. One could write a long paper on this but ultimately it comes down to preferring pragmatism over ideology in economic matters.
10
Clinton did benefit from the bounce created by the IT revolution that began in the early 1970s and reached fruition, according to Scientific American in the mid-1990s. But, this led to a disruption in the labor markets as people were replaced by automation.
The GOP suffered in the recession of 89-94, in part because of Bush's tax increase to cover Reagan's deficit. Bush did the right thing but it cost him re-election.
The take-away is that: 1) doing the right thing isn't always politically expedient; 2) as Dr. Krugman points out, the water is too murky to see more than a profile of the fish.
The GOP suffered in the recession of 89-94, in part because of Bush's tax increase to cover Reagan's deficit. Bush did the right thing but it cost him re-election.
The take-away is that: 1) doing the right thing isn't always politically expedient; 2) as Dr. Krugman points out, the water is too murky to see more than a profile of the fish.
1
I think you just coined a new oxmoron: Job creating trade initiatives.
The problem with Republican economics is simple, just look at Kansas as a demonstration of tax cuts not stimulating economic growth.
55
Kansas is not a good example since it cannot print money.
1
The experience in Kansas is a very good test of the hypothesis of the benefits of large tax cuts and clearly showed that they failed. It should be studied, published and touted in the economic journals as a failure of Reagonomics and the Laffer curve.
1
I realize that you think that policies are supposed to operate instantly but that doesn't surprise me from evident Liberals.
When will these nitwits on the right, like Fiorina, acknowledge that running a corporation (into the ground, in her instance) does not involve the same skill set as framing a national economy?
The proper role of a President and Congress must be to regularly re-frame a national economy - to tweak the various macro-economic levers available to them that guarantee that employment within these 50 states remains robust, without which a national economy must eventually implode (and with it, both tax revenue and the liabilities of the modern welfare state).
In fact, I would argue that the skill set of a modern day CEO is completely ill-suited to framing a national economy - inasmuch as the modern CEO appear obsessed with exporting jobs instead of creating them, in all the name of shareholder value. This preference is, of course, at the very core of our current day epidemic of income inequality.
Honestly, an honest economist like Krugman, Robert Reich, or Joe Stiglitz would do a much better job framing a national economy than a contemporary CEO. CEOs make it their business to not see the REALLY BIG PICTURE - and the role of a responsible national government must to constantly refocus on that REALLY BIG PICTURE.
If you're incapable or unwilling to think nationally, you have no business being a candidate for national office.
The proper role of a President and Congress must be to regularly re-frame a national economy - to tweak the various macro-economic levers available to them that guarantee that employment within these 50 states remains robust, without which a national economy must eventually implode (and with it, both tax revenue and the liabilities of the modern welfare state).
In fact, I would argue that the skill set of a modern day CEO is completely ill-suited to framing a national economy - inasmuch as the modern CEO appear obsessed with exporting jobs instead of creating them, in all the name of shareholder value. This preference is, of course, at the very core of our current day epidemic of income inequality.
Honestly, an honest economist like Krugman, Robert Reich, or Joe Stiglitz would do a much better job framing a national economy than a contemporary CEO. CEOs make it their business to not see the REALLY BIG PICTURE - and the role of a responsible national government must to constantly refocus on that REALLY BIG PICTURE.
If you're incapable or unwilling to think nationally, you have no business being a candidate for national office.
29
So you, like Krugman, are pleased with the Obama economy?
The only statistic/trend that matters to Republicans was not mentioned in Krugman's essay; how have the .01% fared under Democratic/Republican administrations. Never mind growth of the middle class or reduction in poverty under Democrats, many of the uber-wealthy cannot stand to loose a nickel and they have high-jacked the party of Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt to make sure they don't.
13
So everyone i crooked but you. We see your kind all the time don't we?
The irony is that the 1% did much better under Clinton (+300% market gains) and Obama (+250%) than Bush (-30%). You net a lot more paying 5% more tax on 300% gains than saving 5% on a 30% loss. (It's actually more valuable to have a loss when rates are higher because the deduction provides a greater benefit.)
Like most things Republican (more guns make us safer, the market regulates itself, promoting abstinence reduces abortions, etc.), Reaganomics is truly backwards and it's amazing anyone, whether 1% or middle class, votes for the GOP.
Like most things Republican (more guns make us safer, the market regulates itself, promoting abstinence reduces abortions, etc.), Reaganomics is truly backwards and it's amazing anyone, whether 1% or middle class, votes for the GOP.
1
Like the cops I don't believe in coincidences so it's not exactly an accident that the two greatest economic crashes of the last 100 years have occurred following a prolonged period of Republican economic management. Both were the consequence of reckless activity in the private sector and lax regulation. You're clearly going to get more of the same in any future Republican administration. Ben Bernanke, who has publicly announced his departure from the party, attributes it to a retreat into know nothingness, embrace of discredited monetary systems, rejection of the need for regulation, and when reality doesn't turn out as they predict the invocation of conspiracy theories. One manifestation of this is their years long effort to get control of monetary policy in congress and if you like Republican congressional management of the budgetary process you're going love their direction of monetary policy. Unfortunately, on the Democratic side both Warren and Sanders motivated by animosity to the financial industry have allowed themselves to be made part of this effort. The crazy economic programs advanced by the Republican candidates are alone massive evidence of their departure from reality. The good news is they're going to turn into an albatross in the general election because in this era they are going to be subjected to intense scrutiny and they can't withstand it.
27
Again John, I urge you to look at the first chart at
http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/mmt-basics-you-cannot-consider-the-...
or
http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/its-what-you-know-for-sure-that-jus...
I really wish I could post it. The problem in both pre-disaster periods was that money was flowing OUT of the private sector. This led to an explosion of private debt. Of course it was exacerbated by lax regulation, bu the reason people needed to borrow so much from banks was the drain of money from the private sector.
http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/mmt-basics-you-cannot-consider-the-...
or
http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/its-what-you-know-for-sure-that-jus...
I really wish I could post it. The problem in both pre-disaster periods was that money was flowing OUT of the private sector. This led to an explosion of private debt. Of course it was exacerbated by lax regulation, bu the reason people needed to borrow so much from banks was the drain of money from the private sector.
1
@Len Charlap
Princeton, NJ
All incomprehensible. The fact you are an adherent of MMT immediately classifies you as a nut I'm afraid. Financial and economic crashes are invariably occasioned by either external shocks (wars, the 70's oil price explosion) or more usually in the US by credits booms going pop (Ray Dalio and I agree on this completely) which is certainly what happened in 1929-32 and 2007-9. You should watch his little movie which is the best layman's summary of the importance of credit I've come across. This theme also very much dominates Bernanke's account of the financial crisis where the Fed and the Treasury's major aim was to prevent wholesale and retail credit markets seizing up which would have happened has the financial system collapsed.
Princeton, NJ
All incomprehensible. The fact you are an adherent of MMT immediately classifies you as a nut I'm afraid. Financial and economic crashes are invariably occasioned by either external shocks (wars, the 70's oil price explosion) or more usually in the US by credits booms going pop (Ray Dalio and I agree on this completely) which is certainly what happened in 1929-32 and 2007-9. You should watch his little movie which is the best layman's summary of the importance of credit I've come across. This theme also very much dominates Bernanke's account of the financial crisis where the Fed and the Treasury's major aim was to prevent wholesale and retail credit markets seizing up which would have happened has the financial system collapsed.
Like you I too do not believe in coincidences - and in both cases these crashes have occurred AFTER Democrat took over.
It becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish Republican candidates from Hallowe'en trick-or-treaters.
13
Except that most trick-or-treaters don't know any annoying tricks, and that pleasing the kids will set you back only a few dollars for a bag of candy.
1
The role and impact of the POTUS on the economy is vastly exaggerated. It may simply be that Democrats had "better luck than Republicans on oil prices and technological progress."
However, being unable to answer is unsatisfactory and that is why candidates of both parties provide over-the-top explanations.
I wish at least one of them will have the courage to say, "I am happy that my Democratic predecessor was able to nurture a growing economy, but I am really unsure as to all the reasons why it came to pass. I will adopt policies that will continue this trend and modify them as necessary."
However, being unable to answer is unsatisfactory and that is why candidates of both parties provide over-the-top explanations.
I wish at least one of them will have the courage to say, "I am happy that my Democratic predecessor was able to nurture a growing economy, but I am really unsure as to all the reasons why it came to pass. I will adopt policies that will continue this trend and modify them as necessary."
8
I would agree with you up to the point of Obama. This was such a dramatic failure as Congress under direction of Harry Reid handed Obama the keys to the treasury.
One of my Hispanic relatives told me a long time ago that an illegal friend of hers told her that Obama had sent officials down to Mexico and asked the Mexican President to send ALL of the workers north they possibly could. he aid that they had picked all of the criminals out of their jails and picked up all of the troublemakers off of their streets and picked up all of los Indios and actually BUSSED them to the border and told them to get out. When I repeated that here at the time I was laughed at.
One of my neighbors just went on a vacation back to Mexico City to see his parents. While he was there he bought a new house. He told me that Mexico is really nice now that the government has gotten rid of all of the criminals and sent them to America. He said that if things get too warm for illegals here he'll just move to his new home. He said that it will even be warmer.
I asked what happens when they send all of the crooks back and he said that the government will not let them back.
One of my Hispanic relatives told me a long time ago that an illegal friend of hers told her that Obama had sent officials down to Mexico and asked the Mexican President to send ALL of the workers north they possibly could. he aid that they had picked all of the criminals out of their jails and picked up all of the troublemakers off of their streets and picked up all of los Indios and actually BUSSED them to the border and told them to get out. When I repeated that here at the time I was laughed at.
One of my neighbors just went on a vacation back to Mexico City to see his parents. While he was there he bought a new house. He told me that Mexico is really nice now that the government has gotten rid of all of the criminals and sent them to America. He said that if things get too warm for illegals here he'll just move to his new home. He said that it will even be warmer.
I asked what happens when they send all of the crooks back and he said that the government will not let them back.
Something about having no shame. It is interesting how the GOP, from top dog to lowest voter, can make these claims yet they don't happen. But they still believe them and double down and make the same prediction. This is like believe in nonsensical religious dogma. No basis in fact, it doesn't play out in real time and it cannot be proven. Sounds like straight jacket time to me.
12
It's like cult religions which keep predicting the end of the world.
The answer to why Democrats look so much better on economics the Republicans is simple. Democrats take over from Republicans after Republicans muck up the economy which means by comparison Democrats can't help but look compared to the Republicans.
The real question is how many more decades are Republican's going to get away with saying giving tax cuts to the rich and cutting benefits for everyone else is good for the economy. How much longer can they keep saying the government is bad but corporations are good.
The real question is how many more decades are Republican's going to get away with saying giving tax cuts to the rich and cutting benefits for everyone else is good for the economy. How much longer can they keep saying the government is bad but corporations are good.
16
The facts are often inconvenient. And, the Republicans are very inconvenienced!
Thanks you Mr. Krugman for helping to set the record straight.
As for Ms. Fiorina...perhaps there will be yet another job available for her when HP completes the newest splitting of HP. Actually I doubt the new HP spinoff company will want her unless of course the shareholders of the new company want to see their stock value tank.
Thanks you Mr. Krugman for helping to set the record straight.
As for Ms. Fiorina...perhaps there will be yet another job available for her when HP completes the newest splitting of HP. Actually I doubt the new HP spinoff company will want her unless of course the shareholders of the new company want to see their stock value tank.
10
The biggest issue I have with Republican economic policy are its logical inconsistencies that makes me believe that they are trying to make a fool of me.
First of all, they claim that controlling the deficit is critical and that the Democrats are 'Tax and Spend' liberals. When Republicans are in power they seem to be 'Don't Tax and Spend More Conservatives'. They were perfectly comfortable with deficit spending being used to heat up the economy when G.W. Bush was president, but once a Democrat became president their opinion suddenly changed. It is as if they would wish bad things on our country, just so they could get back in power.
Secondly the seem to think that cutting taxes will ALWAYS result in an economic stimulus that will make up the difference in the countries bottom line. Even if you ignore historical evidence, only a complete idiot would believe that it is ALWAYS true, regardless of how BIG the tax cuts are or how LOW taxes currently are. Come on, no adult believes you can eat as much candy as you want without getting sick.
If I didn't know any better, I would think that Republicans uniformly put their party and their own private political fortunes above the needs of their country.
First of all, they claim that controlling the deficit is critical and that the Democrats are 'Tax and Spend' liberals. When Republicans are in power they seem to be 'Don't Tax and Spend More Conservatives'. They were perfectly comfortable with deficit spending being used to heat up the economy when G.W. Bush was president, but once a Democrat became president their opinion suddenly changed. It is as if they would wish bad things on our country, just so they could get back in power.
Secondly the seem to think that cutting taxes will ALWAYS result in an economic stimulus that will make up the difference in the countries bottom line. Even if you ignore historical evidence, only a complete idiot would believe that it is ALWAYS true, regardless of how BIG the tax cuts are or how LOW taxes currently are. Come on, no adult believes you can eat as much candy as you want without getting sick.
If I didn't know any better, I would think that Republicans uniformly put their party and their own private political fortunes above the needs of their country.
27
If I didn't know any better, I would think that Republicans uniformly put their party and their own private political fortunes above the needs of their country.
You are right, this is their game plan, has been for the last seven years.
You are right, this is their game plan, has been for the last seven years.
2
Well, you could say all this or you could just say that the Republicans never met a fact that they liked. This piece skirts around just inventing a new political term, the Pinocchio Syndrome. But to be charitable, perhaps we could quote Einstein who said that repeating the same behavior expecting a different result is the mark of insanity. Pick 'em.
14
I understand what you are telling me, but most on the bottom would ask both parties, "What in the tarnation are you measuring, because nothing is growing down here?"
6
Federal money flows through the states. If nothing is growing in Iowa contact GOP Governor Branstad.
1
Tiresome having Krugman continue to belabor his hatred of Republicans with more of the same-old same-old. Guess the Times thinks it's better than comic strips. Wrong. In any event, the tide of "progressivism" today in the Democratic party and from Bernie on its left shifts things away from the economic center of gravity Democratic administrations have had in the past so Krugman's prattle is irrelevant. Egged on by a frustrated Obama, who would have liked to enact much of Bernie's agenda but frittered away his Congressional majorities on the ACA, a Democratic next president, likely Hillary, will, whatever her centrist past, be obliged to enact at least a show of an agenda of punitive taxes on capital, escalation of bureaucratic regulation of the economy and criminalization of the business world if she can get it thru a Congress that may or may not have Democratic majorities. Since the comic array of Republican presidential wannabes is making a good case for electing more Democrats, the odds may be in her favor. The result is likely to be more capital flight from the U.S., including significant numbers of the "1%". likely with renunciations of U.S. citizenship. Slow growth in the U.S. will continue and American isolationism will grow, while long term Chinese economic growth and the brazenness of the economic, political and military postures of China, Putin, Iran and North Korea will be amplified. Bleak all around.
4
Analyzing this objectively, there's a lot of emotion and hyperbole, but absolutely nothing of relevance to Prof. Krugman's points -- your comment is a screed. The "slow growth" you refer to in the US is higher under Democratic Presidents. Fact or fiction? The promised miracles of supply-side economics never materialize. Fact or fiction? If you're some kind of sock puppet who works for Faux News, at least get some numbers to marshall a counter-argument. Wait...one of Prof. Krugman's points is that epistemic closure requires no such attempt at rationality.
2
Nothing but Republican talking points without a solid factual rebuttal of Krugman's claims. "living in the bubble"?
1
Dear NRroad,
In your wordy partisan diatribe I read no rebuttal of Dr. K's referencing the factual record. Did you miss that part of his column?
In your wordy partisan diatribe I read no rebuttal of Dr. K's referencing the factual record. Did you miss that part of his column?
1
Economies and elections move in different cycles. The actual effect of any president, Republic or Democrat, is therefore vastly overstated. It is mostly a matter luck, good or bad.
3
Underlying the Republicans party's ability to convince voters of their "superior" record in managing the economy, of course, is the strange willingness of some of the poorest people in some of the poorest parts of some of the poorest states in the US repeatedly to vote against their own economic interest. This suggests to me that what really attracts Republican supporters is not the economic policies of their party but its petty and discriminatory racial and social agenda, to which they secretly thrill and with which they agree but can no longer articulate in public.
28
No, its simpler than that. The GOP "base" is composed largely of that group of people long unlabeled in the US: the peasantry. Its quite analogous to the peasantry which largely supported the Anciem Regime in Revolutionary France even while it stated they should "eat grass" while the warehouses bulged with life-saving grain amidst drought. Who said people were rational?
2
And let's not forget stock market performance. Over 100% of the gains in the S&P 500 since 1952 have occurred while Democrats were in office -- Republicans a net loss!
17
Over 100%? Sounds like math only Krugman could love.
Republicans do not understand economics, but they do have an "economic" religion, or belief system. This religion consists of several falsehoods: that tax cuts for the rich are good for the "economy"; that government regulations (such as rules which reduce air and water pollution) are bad; that Social Security and Medicare need to be "reformed" (cut).
When Franklin Roosevelt proposed Social Security in the 1930s, Republicans called it a “hoax,” a “shell game,” and a “Ponzi scheme.” (socsci.uci.edu)
When Lyndon Johnson proposed Medicare in the 1960s, Ronald Reagan opposed it, and "criticized Social Security for supplanting private savings and warned that subsidized medicine would curtail Americans' freedom" and that "pretty soon your son won't decide when he's in school, where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him." (Wikipedia)
Republicans don't know economics. They believe in a fairy tale about how the economy works.
When Franklin Roosevelt proposed Social Security in the 1930s, Republicans called it a “hoax,” a “shell game,” and a “Ponzi scheme.” (socsci.uci.edu)
When Lyndon Johnson proposed Medicare in the 1960s, Ronald Reagan opposed it, and "criticized Social Security for supplanting private savings and warned that subsidized medicine would curtail Americans' freedom" and that "pretty soon your son won't decide when he's in school, where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him." (Wikipedia)
Republicans don't know economics. They believe in a fairy tale about how the economy works.
28
It is as simple as that! Great column today Dr. K!
13
It's even worse. The growth that the Republicans tout would come at huge social costs, such as cutting environmental protection. Because the costs are not monetized, the growth will be illusory. And even worse, the social costs are usually borne by already poor or future generations. NIMBY stands for not in my backyard; NIMTO, not in my term of office.
The Republicans run on a NIMBY/NIMTO platform. They flunk not just economics but basic human decency.
The Republicans run on a NIMBY/NIMTO platform. They flunk not just economics but basic human decency.
25
The Republicans' two main policy proposals, lower taxes and reduced regulation of business, are carved in stone and not subject to revision. This fact limits their options for achieving economic growth. They must rely entirely on market forces to restore demand and stimulate investment. They cannot realistically call for a concerted government-sponsored campaign to rebuild infrastructure and reform education, because their tax policy denies the resources. In any case, such activism would violate their state-oriented philosophy of government.
The Democrats, whatever their shortcomings, benefit from a heritage of employing a more eclectic mix of economic policies. Less bound to a rigid ideological worship of the market, the Dems advocate a combination of government intervention and market-oriented incentives. These policies can contradict each other, but the determination to rely on multiple weapons to fight economic problems still promises better results than the GOP's sterile approach.
The Democrats, whatever their shortcomings, benefit from a heritage of employing a more eclectic mix of economic policies. Less bound to a rigid ideological worship of the market, the Dems advocate a combination of government intervention and market-oriented incentives. These policies can contradict each other, but the determination to rely on multiple weapons to fight economic problems still promises better results than the GOP's sterile approach.
10
Many, if not all, of the Republican candidates have a balanced budget as a goal. Kasich is particularly fixated on that. In fact, this has been true of Republican Presidents as a group since WWII. The last time we had a sustained (> 3 years) period with no deficits was 1919 - 1929, and you know where that got us.
I am getting pretty tired about balanced budgets being treated as if they were a worthwhile goal when actually they have always been a disaster if they lasted more than 3 years. Here is the history:
The federal government has balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than three years in just six periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, and 1920-30. The debt was paid down 29%. 100%, 59%, 27%, 57%, and 38% respectively. A depression began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
BTW, using the usual definition of depression, this accounts for all of our depressions. Also if you look carefully at the Clinton surpluses, you will see they contributed to the crash in 2008. See
http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/mmt-basics-you-cannot-consider-the-...
and
http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/its-what-you-know-for-sure-that-jus...
This historical fact never seems to makes its way into discussions of balanced budgets which are assumed to be good for the economy.
If you are in favor of another depression, vote Republican!
I am getting pretty tired about balanced budgets being treated as if they were a worthwhile goal when actually they have always been a disaster if they lasted more than 3 years. Here is the history:
The federal government has balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than three years in just six periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, and 1920-30. The debt was paid down 29%. 100%, 59%, 27%, 57%, and 38% respectively. A depression began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
BTW, using the usual definition of depression, this accounts for all of our depressions. Also if you look carefully at the Clinton surpluses, you will see they contributed to the crash in 2008. See
http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/mmt-basics-you-cannot-consider-the-...
and
http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/its-what-you-know-for-sure-that-jus...
This historical fact never seems to makes its way into discussions of balanced budgets which are assumed to be good for the economy.
If you are in favor of another depression, vote Republican!
23
Things must be glorious, in upscale Princeton, NJ, because you seem oblivious to the fact that for many tens of millions of Americans -- including those who are uncounted as among the unemployed! -- the last 7 years HAVE BEEN A DEPRESSION, and it has not lifted in the slightest bit, and we know the UI figures are manipulated hoaxes by the "powers that be".
While not ideal (I was not a supporter of Mr. Bush nor did I ever vote for him), the period of time that GW Bush held office (2001-2009) could not be compared in any way, shape or form to how bad things are today -- not even close. I am not a natural pessimist, but the decline I have seen nationally and in my hometown, and in the lives of my family & friends, has been so dramatic and so clearly caused by this administration, that I cannot fail to point it out at every juncture.
If this is "success", I can't survive much more of it. And I will not vote for another Democrat in the forseeable future because of it.
While not ideal (I was not a supporter of Mr. Bush nor did I ever vote for him), the period of time that GW Bush held office (2001-2009) could not be compared in any way, shape or form to how bad things are today -- not even close. I am not a natural pessimist, but the decline I have seen nationally and in my hometown, and in the lives of my family & friends, has been so dramatic and so clearly caused by this administration, that I cannot fail to point it out at every juncture.
If this is "success", I can't survive much more of it. And I will not vote for another Democrat in the forseeable future because of it.
I haven't read the paper, but what worries me is A. presidents by themselves don't have that much power to affect the economy. They are considerably restrained by Congress. And B. what about delayed effects?
Everyone thinks Clinton's surplus was a great thing. It is a Democratic bragging right. Actually, it is what led to 2001 recession, and ultimately to the 2008 depression. The surplus sucked money out of the economy, so people went into debt to maintain their standard of living. Unlike public debt, private sector debt expansion is unsustainable and the bubble burst in 2008.
In essence, both Democrats and Republicans have it wrong because neither side can fully understand that finance at the Federal level is fundamentally different from personal household finance. Each side is convinced that 'Fiscal Responsibility' means reducing the deficit.
The only 'right size' for a deficit is the size that achieves full employment without inflation. A currency issuer, like the Federal Government, is not revenue constrained. That's the difference between a Household and the Federal Government.
It won't be popular to say this, but in an important sense Dick Cheney was right when he said "Deficits don't matter." I don't know if he understood what he was saying, but there is an important sense in which at the Federal level that's true.
Everyone thinks Clinton's surplus was a great thing. It is a Democratic bragging right. Actually, it is what led to 2001 recession, and ultimately to the 2008 depression. The surplus sucked money out of the economy, so people went into debt to maintain their standard of living. Unlike public debt, private sector debt expansion is unsustainable and the bubble burst in 2008.
In essence, both Democrats and Republicans have it wrong because neither side can fully understand that finance at the Federal level is fundamentally different from personal household finance. Each side is convinced that 'Fiscal Responsibility' means reducing the deficit.
The only 'right size' for a deficit is the size that achieves full employment without inflation. A currency issuer, like the Federal Government, is not revenue constrained. That's the difference between a Household and the Federal Government.
It won't be popular to say this, but in an important sense Dick Cheney was right when he said "Deficits don't matter." I don't know if he understood what he was saying, but there is an important sense in which at the Federal level that's true.
11
If you have any evidence that the tiny, temporary Clinton surplus caused the 2008 financial crisis, now would be a good time to share it.
1
Nobody, anywhere, has ever achieved 100% employment without any inflation. It is not a realistic goal. They used to say that 2% unemployment was the goal, and then they raised it to 5%. But if you are one of the 2% or the 5%, it sure does not seem like you are not "unemployed" or that things are going swimmingly!
We did lower inflation, and that was somehow interpreted by the good doctor as "deflation" and "bad" and now he wants a return to the runaway inflation of the late 70s!!! Apparently nobody here is old enough to remember how awful constant, heart-stopping inflation was. And anybody who actually does their own grocery shopping (or is in the market for a new home in any of the big coastal regions) knows that inflation is BACK and big time.
One problem with the general theories offered in this column is that Democrats and Krugmanites want to blame BUSH for every problem in the OBAMA Administration, based on the idea that Bush ruined things and Obama is just trying to clean up the mess. But then when it comes to Bush (or his dad, or Reagan) -- why their SUCCESSES were only based on Clinton or Carter leaving them in such great shape! By those theories, nobody is EVER responsible while on duty in office -- it is always the fault (or to the credit) of somebody else! It's the ultimate buck-passing, and funny, it is always interpreted in FAVOR of the Democrats.
We did lower inflation, and that was somehow interpreted by the good doctor as "deflation" and "bad" and now he wants a return to the runaway inflation of the late 70s!!! Apparently nobody here is old enough to remember how awful constant, heart-stopping inflation was. And anybody who actually does their own grocery shopping (or is in the market for a new home in any of the big coastal regions) knows that inflation is BACK and big time.
One problem with the general theories offered in this column is that Democrats and Krugmanites want to blame BUSH for every problem in the OBAMA Administration, based on the idea that Bush ruined things and Obama is just trying to clean up the mess. But then when it comes to Bush (or his dad, or Reagan) -- why their SUCCESSES were only based on Clinton or Carter leaving them in such great shape! By those theories, nobody is EVER responsible while on duty in office -- it is always the fault (or to the credit) of somebody else! It's the ultimate buck-passing, and funny, it is always interpreted in FAVOR of the Democrats.
1
Yeats wrote,
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
While Bertrand Russell may have modernized the quote a bit, the truth is inescapable, and logical: there is a clear correlation between wisdom and uncertainty.
Unfortunately, most of us prefer certainty - especially in the incredibly complex world of national politics. Nuances and uncertainties make us feel uncomfortable, no matter how accurate or honest they may be. Certainty makes us feel safer; like black-and-white thinking, it makes the world much easier to navigate. Especially in my (boomer) generation, it is the John Wayne, good vs. evil dichotomy that works for most people. And the Reagan tax-cutting myth is one of the most tried and true icons out there.
So it is no surprise that any candidate would use that formula to advance their candidacy - give the people what they want, and win the election. It's obviously 21st century snake oil politics, but it works, so don't look for it to cease any time soon.
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
While Bertrand Russell may have modernized the quote a bit, the truth is inescapable, and logical: there is a clear correlation between wisdom and uncertainty.
Unfortunately, most of us prefer certainty - especially in the incredibly complex world of national politics. Nuances and uncertainties make us feel uncomfortable, no matter how accurate or honest they may be. Certainty makes us feel safer; like black-and-white thinking, it makes the world much easier to navigate. Especially in my (boomer) generation, it is the John Wayne, good vs. evil dichotomy that works for most people. And the Reagan tax-cutting myth is one of the most tried and true icons out there.
So it is no surprise that any candidate would use that formula to advance their candidacy - give the people what they want, and win the election. It's obviously 21st century snake oil politics, but it works, so don't look for it to cease any time soon.
17
The corruption processes that have been working on our fine democracy for several decades are locked in place. Well over one hundred million workers have learned the meaning of austerity with respect to their own bottom lines. When republicans blame the government for the bottom line austerity they face citizens, who should know better blame Uncle Sam for their inability to get ahead not their employers. Employers in turn have managed to use money to corrupt through legislative processes and court processes every social economic process that citizens received from government to protect their rights as vulnerable working citizens. Corporations in the name of competitive advantage destroyed the notion of pensions, reasonable health care benefits which they were allowed to sell to the huge insurance corporations to the detriment of the worker, unemployment benefits which I now hear Texas corporations have managed circumnavigate completely, collective bargaining rights for good wages and for worker safety. Government now has left only tentative means of keeping a social economic balance for the ordinary working citizens of the nation. Corporations and various other business operations in this nation now have the competitive advantage they sought for decades by corrupting government to encourage discarding the well being of working and nonworking citizens of the nation.
10
This column provides solid details about this particular version of a deceptive over-promise, but I suspect that one reason Republicans feel comfortable using this kind of deceptive advertising is that respectable people in other sectors of our society do it all the time. In commerce we warn the buyer to beware, but doctors, dentists, social workers, teachers and principals, accountants, lawyers do something similar, in my experience, many promise you what would meet your needs and then deliver only a narrow slice of what is needed. If the deception is called out, it is often met with the attitude that the listener is responsible for not believing the lie. It's basically a kind of bullying, as far as I can see, a bullying that's filtered through ideas and through an exchange based on a self-serving deception. My point is that its manifestation among Republican politicians seems to me to reflect a cultural acceptance of the technique of the over-promise more broadly.
19
Makes sense. It always confounds me when I see so very many ordinary middle class working folks adamantly supporting a variety of tax cuts which will most benefit the wealthy. Sometimes I think that it has to do with the GOP success in creating fear of the underclass, i.e., convincing that middle class that the poor are lazy takers who threaten to take away the former's hard earned place on the economic ladder. In that 'them against us' mindset, taxes (touted as a way to redistribute middle class income to the lazy poor - often also wrongly construed as immigrants or people of color and therefore "those others") are inherently bad which implies that tax cuts, any and all tax cuts, must be good. Thus, we create a the fearful, change averse, segment of the middle class who will time and again vote for financial policies which benefit the upper class. In a sense they have been convinced that wealth distribution is a good thing as long as the benefits are taken from the lower class (whom they fear) and given to the upper class (to which they aspire).
32
Krugman sites Bill Clinton for a large growth presidency but his administration's economics were not very "Democratic". The largest program cuts for welfare were done by President Bill Clinton in 1996 with a GOP congress. Also during Bill Clinton's Presidency US government spending was sharply reigned in by Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.
Ok, but I think most are voting for the social policies touted by the GOP for religious or just traditional conservative social positions. They think that if women went back into the home and immigrants were expelled god would take care of the unemployment problem.
lff
lff
2
LOL, Anne-Marie -- the middle class doesn't need the GOP to "create fear of the underclass" or tell us that SOME of the poor are lazy takers.
All we have to do is stand in line at the supermarket, budgeting our hard-earned dollars, and see the family ahead of us -- clad in Northface jackets, wearing brand new Ugg boots and carrying Coach handbags -- who are paying for 10 bags of Halloween candy with their SNAP card (roughly $80!) and then peeling off some cash bills to pay for their cigarettes, beer and Lotto ticket.
And no, I didn't read that on some Tea Party website. I saw it, last Friday, with my own eyes at my local supermarket.
BTW: I made no comment nor allegation as to the race of that family, but since you insinuate as much -- for the record, they were white.
All we have to do is stand in line at the supermarket, budgeting our hard-earned dollars, and see the family ahead of us -- clad in Northface jackets, wearing brand new Ugg boots and carrying Coach handbags -- who are paying for 10 bags of Halloween candy with their SNAP card (roughly $80!) and then peeling off some cash bills to pay for their cigarettes, beer and Lotto ticket.
And no, I didn't read that on some Tea Party website. I saw it, last Friday, with my own eyes at my local supermarket.
BTW: I made no comment nor allegation as to the race of that family, but since you insinuate as much -- for the record, they were white.
Republicans conflate microeconomic success with macro economics. That is, if they've built a successful business, then, surely, they can build a successful economy. There's a vast difference, however, between grabbing a bigger piece of pie than in baking one. The skill set required is entirely different.
88
Political economy combines approaches to governing and money and outlines the intangibles--connections that consistently appear but cannot be empirically proven. (We feel the wind but cannot see it.) Paul's questions always come to the edge of political economy (he sees more value in the freshwater vs, saltwater fight and in policing the profession's ethic's--he's a classist!), but he forgoes speculation about the culture of political economy--the dense bands of thinking and denial, along with power and income that lead to alternative logics shaped by these concentric tensions.
Witness the bands: the only agreement among GOP candidates was a default (a la Sarah Palin): blame uniformly lousy performances on the media! The band of trouble are the lumpen in office--the GOP miscalculated, thinking they would shift to the mainstream instead of locking down.
"Epistemic closure" is not a dynamic model and begins to fail future tests, since its readings underweighed global change but threw a cultural favorite, a black man, in the power ring. Tempted, they succeeded in dividing Congress, blocking vital infra-structure,
Witness the bands: the only agreement among GOP candidates was a default (a la Sarah Palin): blame uniformly lousy performances on the media! The band of trouble are the lumpen in office--the GOP miscalculated, thinking they would shift to the mainstream instead of locking down.
"Epistemic closure" is not a dynamic model and begins to fail future tests, since its readings underweighed global change but threw a cultural favorite, a black man, in the power ring. Tempted, they succeeded in dividing Congress, blocking vital infra-structure,
8
[Sorry, I hit send accidentally, mid sentence!] Their ideas on race had slightly more leverage than their conservative views. Obamacare consistently revealed this "epistemic closure:" loved the coverage, hated him. The GOP endorsement by voters was more of a backlash about the ideas of race-in-power and strong state organizing activity, than a real affinity (proved by Obama's 2nd win). The GOP is still a majority-of-minorities party (groups from anti-women's rights/civil rights, zealots, and disciples).
It does see the world's 4th largest political economy! The federal budget ranks 4th among global GDPs! Solely controlled by Congress, the President and the people have no direct say. Inside it is a safety net (social security!) whose legal obligations on the budget make it the 25th largest GDP, the largest pool of firewalled public cash anywhere!
That Ryan's function: to teach and educate the Freedom Caucus about the trillions at stake! Trillions for the private sector--not for cuts! Ryan knows the numbers. He's persuasive in his element.
The GOP is campaigning in their cultural element (taxes, fear, failure), avoiding every mention of the real prize: control of a giant political economy that would rank 4th among global GDPs, with a pool of cash that would rank 25th among entire national outputs.
The strategy here is theft! The rich--the best, the brightest!--their helpers, share the spoils.
It does see the world's 4th largest political economy! The federal budget ranks 4th among global GDPs! Solely controlled by Congress, the President and the people have no direct say. Inside it is a safety net (social security!) whose legal obligations on the budget make it the 25th largest GDP, the largest pool of firewalled public cash anywhere!
That Ryan's function: to teach and educate the Freedom Caucus about the trillions at stake! Trillions for the private sector--not for cuts! Ryan knows the numbers. He's persuasive in his element.
The GOP is campaigning in their cultural element (taxes, fear, failure), avoiding every mention of the real prize: control of a giant political economy that would rank 4th among global GDPs, with a pool of cash that would rank 25th among entire national outputs.
The strategy here is theft! The rich--the best, the brightest!--their helpers, share the spoils.
3
Is this Ryan you are talking about Paul Ryan, he of the $6 TRILLION magic asterisk?
2
Paul, There’s a white elephant that you should harp on that would add a significant boost to social safety nets or rebuilding aging infrastructure: The annual military budget. In a 2011 article published in, “The Nation” the author estimated the true total annual budget that includes the base number reported plus all the hidden costs. It comes to nearly $1.0 trillion. The authors then state:
“… it doesn’t include the interest we’re paying on money we borrowed to fund past military operations; nor does it include portions of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration that are dedicated to national security. And we don’t know if this number captures the entire intelligence budget or not, because parts of intelligence funding are classified.”
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-much-does-washington-spend-defense/
More recent estimates project the total as $1.6 trillion. Within these totals, it is not clear to me whether it includes the additional emergency increases presented to Congress several times a year for President Obama’s current illegal wars of aggression.
I don’t understand why, “The Conscience of a Liberal” has not forcefully expressed his dissent against our endless wars of aggression against the Muslim world now into its 14th consecutive year. Where’s that enlightened compassionate voice?
“… it doesn’t include the interest we’re paying on money we borrowed to fund past military operations; nor does it include portions of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration that are dedicated to national security. And we don’t know if this number captures the entire intelligence budget or not, because parts of intelligence funding are classified.”
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-much-does-washington-spend-defense/
More recent estimates project the total as $1.6 trillion. Within these totals, it is not clear to me whether it includes the additional emergency increases presented to Congress several times a year for President Obama’s current illegal wars of aggression.
I don’t understand why, “The Conscience of a Liberal” has not forcefully expressed his dissent against our endless wars of aggression against the Muslim world now into its 14th consecutive year. Where’s that enlightened compassionate voice?
34
I've made the calculation too. $1 trillion for national security is a good approximation. A very big piece of that spending is for protecting access to oil and its transport to our fossil fuel economy here.
3
The most immediate concern regarding the partisan growth gap are the economic consequences, e.g., differences in job formation and tax revenue. Data demonstrate this.
But the huge long-term concern are the implications for the nature of American democracy. Over the last fifteen years the Supreme Court and extreme wealth have combined to narrow political options for the American voter. Sometimes, as in the case of Citizens United, the Supreme Court has favored the flow of funds into politics in ways that not only sharply influence the political process but open it to illicit manipulation. In cases such as the gutting of the Voting Rights Act the Court has acted to facilitate voter suppression. At the moment those most affected by these shifts currently are mostly confused or irritated but see them as personal irritations. But a grand dilemma emerges; as more people feel an ever-growing economic uncertainty and volatility yet discover access to the political process blocked by voter suppression or pre-emptively purchased by the wealthy through funding candidates.....Rubio, Bush, and Clinton stand out as prospective examples.....will the dominant interests need to ratchet down ever harder on public desire for change? We have witnessed a willingness to deploy law enforcement against Occupy Wall Street that vanished when Cliven Bundy waved guns at federal officers and prosecution of whistleblowers but not bankers. How far down this road will the American political system go?
But the huge long-term concern are the implications for the nature of American democracy. Over the last fifteen years the Supreme Court and extreme wealth have combined to narrow political options for the American voter. Sometimes, as in the case of Citizens United, the Supreme Court has favored the flow of funds into politics in ways that not only sharply influence the political process but open it to illicit manipulation. In cases such as the gutting of the Voting Rights Act the Court has acted to facilitate voter suppression. At the moment those most affected by these shifts currently are mostly confused or irritated but see them as personal irritations. But a grand dilemma emerges; as more people feel an ever-growing economic uncertainty and volatility yet discover access to the political process blocked by voter suppression or pre-emptively purchased by the wealthy through funding candidates.....Rubio, Bush, and Clinton stand out as prospective examples.....will the dominant interests need to ratchet down ever harder on public desire for change? We have witnessed a willingness to deploy law enforcement against Occupy Wall Street that vanished when Cliven Bundy waved guns at federal officers and prosecution of whistleblowers but not bankers. How far down this road will the American political system go?
68
Great piece, thanks.
1
It's not in the best interests of the GOP to mention any good news, because its very existence is based on the spreading of lies, resentment, and fear. These people are not conservatives. They are radical counter-revolutionists who use the language of a mass movement to undo all the social programs of the New Deal and Great Society.
Unlike Democrats, they use religion in order to put the grotesque patina of godliness upon their Greed is Good dogma. The gruesome partnership of the obscenely rich, fundamentalists and Republicans thrives on a fragmented citizenry in order to push through programs rewarding Wall Street and the forever-war industry at the same time they punish citizens through cuts in education, wages, health care, employment and social security.
When Democrats are elected,they find themselves in the position of fighting the cuts (except for the military and corporations) and mitigating the GOP damage, instead of going on offense and pushing expansion of government for the public good. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama acted as deficit hawks though much of their tenures, for the sole purpose of placating the oligarchs who fund both major political parties. If the economy grows more under Democrats, it could be the result of simply keeping the GOP nihilists at bay for chunks of time and successfully urging more "social responsibility" upon the ruling class racketeers.
And that's not good enough. Bernie for President.
http://kmgarcia2000.blogspot.com/
Unlike Democrats, they use religion in order to put the grotesque patina of godliness upon their Greed is Good dogma. The gruesome partnership of the obscenely rich, fundamentalists and Republicans thrives on a fragmented citizenry in order to push through programs rewarding Wall Street and the forever-war industry at the same time they punish citizens through cuts in education, wages, health care, employment and social security.
When Democrats are elected,they find themselves in the position of fighting the cuts (except for the military and corporations) and mitigating the GOP damage, instead of going on offense and pushing expansion of government for the public good. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama acted as deficit hawks though much of their tenures, for the sole purpose of placating the oligarchs who fund both major political parties. If the economy grows more under Democrats, it could be the result of simply keeping the GOP nihilists at bay for chunks of time and successfully urging more "social responsibility" upon the ruling class racketeers.
And that's not good enough. Bernie for President.
http://kmgarcia2000.blogspot.com/
428
I was all set to click on the recommended button when I read your last sentence "Bernie for President".
If the Democratic Party wants to lose the election all it has to do is nominate Bernie.
Talk about bubbles.
If the Democratic Party wants to lose the election all it has to do is nominate Bernie.
Talk about bubbles.
Yes, where are the "Sell all you have and give to the poor so that your riches will be stored in heaven," Christians?
4
I agree with this comment with two exceptions: (1) it's too frequent use of sophistic labels, and (2) it's last sentence.
We should of course be cautious about crediting a president, regardless of party, with the performance of the U.S. economy, especially when the opposing party controls Congress.
6
And you'll notice that Mr. Krugman does NOT so credit any president.
6
True, we should be aware of the cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy, and much credit for the good economy under Clinton, and the balanced budget at the end of his administration could be attributed to preceding Bush's willingness to increase taxes when the situation required.
But the comparisons are striking.
But the comparisons are striking.
I just love this article. Spread it far and wide. Our do nothing republican congress has done nothing to help with our economy. In their effort to shackle Obama they have hurt all of us financially. Wake up folks! Dems are the better choice.
177
If only. You saw the audience at the debate. Multiply them by several million and they'll all be denouncing this column as "gotcha journalism" by the MSM.
The only reason people vote Republican at all is that they believe that they will pay less Tax under Republicans. This is not true unless you are a 1% person but the ingrained belief persists and this false belief is literally the only advantage the GOP have over Democrats.The GOP candidates know this and indeed are promising crazy (and simple) Tax plans to their voters. The fact that CNBC dared to actual question their illogical tax plans is the reason the candidates got so upset at the debate and are scrambling to return to Fox news where nobody is interested in reality.
324
My right-wing fundamentalist relatives don't vote Republican because they want low taxes, they seem to really believe that a vote for a Republican is a vote for God.
They believe Republicans uphold moral values - mostly those involving sex - and that Democrats are in league with the devil. They learn this at their tax-exempt church, but they seem to have forgotten everything Jesus said about the poor and about money. They really hate abortion, though, and they don't like to think much beyond that.
They believe Republicans uphold moral values - mostly those involving sex - and that Democrats are in league with the devil. They learn this at their tax-exempt church, but they seem to have forgotten everything Jesus said about the poor and about money. They really hate abortion, though, and they don't like to think much beyond that.
7
I'm afraid I disagree. I think you'd find today that most people vote for Republicans because they are convinced their guns/god/grits will be taken away by Democrats. I don't think there are many rational people left in the regular rank and file of the Republican party. Now the wealthy portion of the party is something else altogether.
1
And somehow they don't hear all those candidates talking about switching from income tax to consumption taxes. Guess who would be paying the highest percentage of their income in taxes then. I guess that would be those who have to spend all they earn just to survive!
2
Krugman's columns neatly outline one side of a the main battle in American politics--the struggle over the right size of government. He invariable argues government should be bigger, more powerful and involved in our daily lives---and in fact, Liberals are better able to direct our economy. He believes a dollar spent by government is more useful than one spent in the private sector--and that it's ok to borrow, print and spend an almost unlimited amount.
As a business owner in Vermont, a small, socialistic, Krugman paradise--an anti-business enclave--much more in tune with Quebec, than its capitalist host country, Krugman's government-at-all-cost ideas, kill investment and entrepreneurship.
When government regulations are too intrusive, so expensive that expansion becomes painful, I don't expand.
When the hiring of employees becomes so burdened by a dizzying array of social programs and required contributions--such as Obamacare, that it's not profitable to hire--I invest in efficiency, not people. Sorry.
When the tax rate becomes such that more of my earnings go to government than to my family, I'm not encouraged to work harder--or get bigger or hire more.
Krugman lives in his world, I live in the real world--where I don't believe the 1% are taking anything from me. Meanwhile, every day I open my doors--there stands Uncle Sam and the State of VT, hands out, demanding more. Krugman would surely cheer.
I'll take my chances with a Republican president.
As a business owner in Vermont, a small, socialistic, Krugman paradise--an anti-business enclave--much more in tune with Quebec, than its capitalist host country, Krugman's government-at-all-cost ideas, kill investment and entrepreneurship.
When government regulations are too intrusive, so expensive that expansion becomes painful, I don't expand.
When the hiring of employees becomes so burdened by a dizzying array of social programs and required contributions--such as Obamacare, that it's not profitable to hire--I invest in efficiency, not people. Sorry.
When the tax rate becomes such that more of my earnings go to government than to my family, I'm not encouraged to work harder--or get bigger or hire more.
Krugman lives in his world, I live in the real world--where I don't believe the 1% are taking anything from me. Meanwhile, every day I open my doors--there stands Uncle Sam and the State of VT, hands out, demanding more. Krugman would surely cheer.
I'll take my chances with a Republican president.
7
There are two simple facts that Jesse cannot seem to grasp. One is:
The federal government can print money.
The U.S. can never go bankrupt unless we want to. It will run out of money the day after the NFL runs out of points. (I was getting worried in the Saints - Giants game.) Now we cannot print arbitrarily large sums ad infinitum. When the economy has achieved its full potential or we have shortages, printing too much money will cause severe inflation. That is certainly not the case today.
The other fact is:
ONLY the federal government can print money.
No one else has a printing press. The population increases. The dollar loses value. The economy grows. As all this happens, the private sector needs more and more money. Only the federal government can provide the new money. The preferred way to do this is for the government to finance via gross deficits worthwhile projects such as infrastructure repair, education, research, etc. If we do this wisely, we will reap long term benefits and get money in the hands of the people who need it and will spend it, and out of the hands of the people who do not need it and will speculate with it.
What has happened if this fact is ignored? All 6 times we have eliminated deficits long enough to substantially pay down the debt, we have suffered a depression.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.
The federal government can print money.
The U.S. can never go bankrupt unless we want to. It will run out of money the day after the NFL runs out of points. (I was getting worried in the Saints - Giants game.) Now we cannot print arbitrarily large sums ad infinitum. When the economy has achieved its full potential or we have shortages, printing too much money will cause severe inflation. That is certainly not the case today.
The other fact is:
ONLY the federal government can print money.
No one else has a printing press. The population increases. The dollar loses value. The economy grows. As all this happens, the private sector needs more and more money. Only the federal government can provide the new money. The preferred way to do this is for the government to finance via gross deficits worthwhile projects such as infrastructure repair, education, research, etc. If we do this wisely, we will reap long term benefits and get money in the hands of the people who need it and will spend it, and out of the hands of the people who do not need it and will speculate with it.
What has happened if this fact is ignored? All 6 times we have eliminated deficits long enough to substantially pay down the debt, we have suffered a depression.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.
16
Besides eliminating ALL taxes, what other onerous regulations that hurt the little businessman would you kill? Minimum wage, of course, but what else?
5
Perhaps you should heed the words of your prophet, Ayn Rand: You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
8
Harry S. Truman said it best: If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic.
654
Obamacare is a tortured alternative to universal healthcare, only necessary because of Republican opposition to any system which would provide medical services to all Americans. The root of the difference is one of moral principle.
19
What a great citation, Sally. Yet the Republican base constantly votes against their own economic interest.
They rather vote for guns in each house than a chicken in each pot.
They rather vote for guns in each house than a chicken in each pot.
2
Yes, Americans and many Repubs want the wealthy to pay fair share of taxes, expand SS, affordable h/c for all and strong gun safety laws. Yet this is not translatable into political action, due to our political system that needs reform.
Princeton’s Martin Gilens compiled stats over decades proving that most of our laws are passed per the wishes of the elites, not the majority. The democracy ain’t working. Decades pass and the security of millions gets weaker.
We finally achieved health care for more, not all, leaving out tens of millions, depending on location. So much for Equal Protection. Now the price of h/c is going up---see NYT re people dropping insurance with costly premiums. Why wouldn’t it go up? Regulation, common abroad, is off the table for discussion, so our 2016 election won’t redress this.
Democrats are cautious in their promises? (you mean Hillary, Mr. Krugman?) not b/c of merit---but due to the influence of big money in politics, on our media, and rw Gop control of congress. Obviously, Dems can’t go outside the parameters. Just label whatever the big money opposes as left wing and the Dems are on the back foot. We stay stuck.
Waiting for comparisons in this column of the various Dem proposals, actual pros/con, how they affect their lives. Just that will reflect badly on the Gop by contrast.
Princeton’s Martin Gilens compiled stats over decades proving that most of our laws are passed per the wishes of the elites, not the majority. The democracy ain’t working. Decades pass and the security of millions gets weaker.
We finally achieved health care for more, not all, leaving out tens of millions, depending on location. So much for Equal Protection. Now the price of h/c is going up---see NYT re people dropping insurance with costly premiums. Why wouldn’t it go up? Regulation, common abroad, is off the table for discussion, so our 2016 election won’t redress this.
Democrats are cautious in their promises? (you mean Hillary, Mr. Krugman?) not b/c of merit---but due to the influence of big money in politics, on our media, and rw Gop control of congress. Obviously, Dems can’t go outside the parameters. Just label whatever the big money opposes as left wing and the Dems are on the back foot. We stay stuck.
Waiting for comparisons in this column of the various Dem proposals, actual pros/con, how they affect their lives. Just that will reflect badly on the Gop by contrast.
199
To Meredith and others complaining about the rising cost of Obamacare and of private health insurance:
Yes, the cost of health care is going up in many cases -- by how much we really do not yet know, so let's not get too carried away with this until we know more.
The limited window Obama had was to eliminate restrictions on preexisting conditions, cover millions (that's a lot) more people (and yes, many policies have high premiums and high deductibles, but they do prevent bankruptcies due to illness), provide free annual check-ups and free preventive care, and bring millions of people into a health care system, hopefully willing to vote (maybe for the first time) and to vote for cost controls and ultimately single-payer. Should he have allowed things to get even worse, hoping that would lead to some miraculous change? Was there a single-payer option that would pass? There is a big difference between Democrats and Republicans on this and all other issues. Let's not minimize those differences because of our disappointment with the speed of progress. I wish Bernie and Hillary were rolled into one candidate. But that is not the choice we have. And one of those Republicans we have been watching on stage performing some bizarre absurdist play will be the alternative to Hillary (most likely). Keep up the critiques, but keep them in perspective!
Yes, the cost of health care is going up in many cases -- by how much we really do not yet know, so let's not get too carried away with this until we know more.
The limited window Obama had was to eliminate restrictions on preexisting conditions, cover millions (that's a lot) more people (and yes, many policies have high premiums and high deductibles, but they do prevent bankruptcies due to illness), provide free annual check-ups and free preventive care, and bring millions of people into a health care system, hopefully willing to vote (maybe for the first time) and to vote for cost controls and ultimately single-payer. Should he have allowed things to get even worse, hoping that would lead to some miraculous change? Was there a single-payer option that would pass? There is a big difference between Democrats and Republicans on this and all other issues. Let's not minimize those differences because of our disappointment with the speed of progress. I wish Bernie and Hillary were rolled into one candidate. But that is not the choice we have. And one of those Republicans we have been watching on stage performing some bizarre absurdist play will be the alternative to Hillary (most likely). Keep up the critiques, but keep them in perspective!
5
Many republicans want to expand SS? Funny how none of them are running for president.
4
I'm so glad you think we should keep up the critiques. Thanks. But just who has the perspective? Compare us to dozens of countries who for generations have covered all at lower cost. We cover only some at much higher cost, as tax payers subsidize medical monopoly profits.
Your points demonstrate just how our country has moved to the Right politically. Things could be a lot worse, so be thankful, and be very afraid of the big bad Repubs. They get more bizarre each cycle, and our standards of what the govt owes its citizens get weaker. Can we have 2 meals a day for 2016, please sir, instead of 1?
Your points demonstrate just how our country has moved to the Right politically. Things could be a lot worse, so be thankful, and be very afraid of the big bad Repubs. They get more bizarre each cycle, and our standards of what the govt owes its citizens get weaker. Can we have 2 meals a day for 2016, please sir, instead of 1?
I bet none of your readers ever thought there would be a day when they actually missed Mitt Romney. As far as I can remember, he came the closest in my definition of a sensible Republican grappling with his base.
Even though I cannot agree entirely with your proposition of epistemic bias ( I mean just how bad can it be ? ), I wonder at what point the Repubs will reconsider their own positions as untenable. Not because you said, but because one of them spoke the obvious.
All the more reason why the Democratic propositions need to have no major flaws. I am still scared that Mr. Sanders or Mrs. Clinton will lose not because the proposition was weak, but because there was a major flaw that the Repubs seized on. The Democrats just need to do the simple straight work of building on the gains of the Clinton-Obama years.
Even though I cannot agree entirely with your proposition of epistemic bias ( I mean just how bad can it be ? ), I wonder at what point the Repubs will reconsider their own positions as untenable. Not because you said, but because one of them spoke the obvious.
All the more reason why the Democratic propositions need to have no major flaws. I am still scared that Mr. Sanders or Mrs. Clinton will lose not because the proposition was weak, but because there was a major flaw that the Repubs seized on. The Democrats just need to do the simple straight work of building on the gains of the Clinton-Obama years.
36
"I bet none of your readers ever thought there would be a day when they actually missed Mitt Romney. "
You actually know somebody that misses Mitt Romney?
"As far as I can remember, he came the closest in my definition of a sensible Republican grappling with his base."
By running a campaign based on transparently manufactured nonsense?
"All the more reason why the Democratic propositions need to have no major flaws."
As opposed to what? The two generations of conservative nonsense which somehow aren't major flaws?
You actually know somebody that misses Mitt Romney?
"As far as I can remember, he came the closest in my definition of a sensible Republican grappling with his base."
By running a campaign based on transparently manufactured nonsense?
"All the more reason why the Democratic propositions need to have no major flaws."
As opposed to what? The two generations of conservative nonsense which somehow aren't major flaws?
1
Paul is selective about the details of our administrations since 1947. Truman left a war that it took Ike to end. LBJ left a war that it (finally) took Nixon (and Congress) to end. Carter left stagflation and a deep recession that it took Reagan to end. Bubba benefited from an expansion that started under 41, then deregulated the financial services industry by signing the repeal of Glass Steagall and thereby set up the Great Recession and its aftermath that we’re STILL living through. Dubya’s early economic problems were caused by 9/11.
Comparing Mr. Obama’s geological-age-challenging path from recession to sluggish growth with Dubya’s experience kinda ignores the effects of the worst act of terrorism committed on our soil since Pearl Harbor, which happened on Dubya’s watch but right around the time in that administration that they’d identified where the White House bathrooms were – and which was planned mostly on Bubba’s watch.
The pattern’s not THAT mysterious. Growth under Republicans would have been much better if we hadn’t had to fix the catastrophes left by Democrats before we could IGNITE that growth.
To so many Democrats and particularly liberals, money spontaneously generates to be skimmed and used for collective purposes. They have no INTEREST in how it’s earned, how to create real, private sector jobs, how to stimulate demand – all that icky stuff. Not surprising that they pay so little attention – just consider how LITTLE Hillary talks about these things.
Comparing Mr. Obama’s geological-age-challenging path from recession to sluggish growth with Dubya’s experience kinda ignores the effects of the worst act of terrorism committed on our soil since Pearl Harbor, which happened on Dubya’s watch but right around the time in that administration that they’d identified where the White House bathrooms were – and which was planned mostly on Bubba’s watch.
The pattern’s not THAT mysterious. Growth under Republicans would have been much better if we hadn’t had to fix the catastrophes left by Democrats before we could IGNITE that growth.
To so many Democrats and particularly liberals, money spontaneously generates to be skimmed and used for collective purposes. They have no INTEREST in how it’s earned, how to create real, private sector jobs, how to stimulate demand – all that icky stuff. Not surprising that they pay so little attention – just consider how LITTLE Hillary talks about these things.
43
LBJ declined to run for President in 1968 so as to focus on ending the war in Vietnam. He had a deal all worked out. Nixon told the Pres of South Vietnam to balk at the peace proposal, promising him a better deal if he did. As a result, the war went on for 4 more years - hundreds of thousands died, tons of destruction, billions of dollars and all it bought was a Nixon election that didn't last more than 6 years.
I'm not sure if there is an example of greater evil exhibited by one who became elected but certainly Bush Jr. is in the same class.
Junior (Bush the inferior) came into office with a mild deflationary recessiong but otherwise a nation sitting at the all time heights of history for prosperity and moral authority/perceived legitimacy. When he left the nation was losing 800k jobs a month and they Nobel Prize committee gave the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama just for not being Bush. Bush irresponsibly under-reacted to the threat of terrorism for 9 months.
(http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2015/oct/21/bush-responsibility-twi...
In the face of clear and overwhelming evidence of supply-side saturation (after 20 years of supply side bias policies) it was clear that demand side bias policies were called for. Yet Bush's policies moved over $12 Trillion from the 99/%-demand side to the 1% supply side of our economy. When credit markets ran out, the economy imploded - at diamond accurate rate of $1.2 trillion in GNP/year).
Call it clowncaronomics - with tears.
I'm not sure if there is an example of greater evil exhibited by one who became elected but certainly Bush Jr. is in the same class.
Junior (Bush the inferior) came into office with a mild deflationary recessiong but otherwise a nation sitting at the all time heights of history for prosperity and moral authority/perceived legitimacy. When he left the nation was losing 800k jobs a month and they Nobel Prize committee gave the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama just for not being Bush. Bush irresponsibly under-reacted to the threat of terrorism for 9 months.
(http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2015/oct/21/bush-responsibility-twi...
In the face of clear and overwhelming evidence of supply-side saturation (after 20 years of supply side bias policies) it was clear that demand side bias policies were called for. Yet Bush's policies moved over $12 Trillion from the 99/%-demand side to the 1% supply side of our economy. When credit markets ran out, the economy imploded - at diamond accurate rate of $1.2 trillion in GNP/year).
Call it clowncaronomics - with tears.
155
The job creators have already gotten billions each year in tax breaks so that they would have the resources to create jobs. Most of this money has, contrary to Republican theory, not gone to create jobs, at least not in the U.S. It has supported investment in foreign countries, but mainly it has been used for financial games, which are very profitable until they arent.
Republicans tend to paint any ending of a war short of total victory as treason, and they have made this an effective campaign strategy. So politically speaking our stupid wars can only be ended by Republicans. The repeal of Glass Steagall is celebrated by Republicans as a lessening of government regulation. so any bad effects of this repeal should ooze over to those who oppose regulation.
How to get money to create real, private sector jobs is simple: make it impossible or expensive for money to do the other things that it would rather do. This demands a powerful and activist government. Without such a government, money blows bubbles that pops and then turns to government with frantic appeals.
Real demand is stimulated by putting money in peoples' pockets. Fake demand is stimulated by making it possible for people to borrow money, money that will eventually have to be repaid. A raise in the minimum wage puts money in pockets.
Republicans tend to paint any ending of a war short of total victory as treason, and they have made this an effective campaign strategy. So politically speaking our stupid wars can only be ended by Republicans. The repeal of Glass Steagall is celebrated by Republicans as a lessening of government regulation. so any bad effects of this repeal should ooze over to those who oppose regulation.
How to get money to create real, private sector jobs is simple: make it impossible or expensive for money to do the other things that it would rather do. This demands a powerful and activist government. Without such a government, money blows bubbles that pops and then turns to government with frantic appeals.
Real demand is stimulated by putting money in peoples' pockets. Fake demand is stimulated by making it possible for people to borrow money, money that will eventually have to be repaid. A raise in the minimum wage puts money in pockets.
86
Mr. Luettgen omits the death of Stalin in spring 1953 which had a great effect on the end of the Korean War.
Nixon did not want to end the Vietnam War. He was forced to do so by Congress.
While Clinton did as president sign the repeal of the Glass Steagall separation of commercial and investment banking, there was overwhelming support and pressure from the GOP for that repeal.
Mr. Luettgen omits the deregulation under Reagan that caused the S&L crisis.
He omits the recession under Reagan where unemployment topped 10% and the Bush 41 recession.
Bush 43 and Greenspan ignored Fed Governor Gramlich's warnings [given BEFORE the crisis hit] and exhortations to crack down on subprime mortgages
Let’s look at unemployment rates
1976 7.7; 1977 7.1; 1978 6.1; 1979 5.8; 1980 7.1; Carter
1981 7.6; 1982 9.7; 1983 9.6; 1984 7.5; 1985 7.2; 1986 7.0; 1987 6.2; 1988 5.5 Reagan
1989 5.3; 1990 5.1; 1991 6.8; 1992 7.5; Bush 41
1993 6.9; 1994 6.1; 1995 4.5; 1996 5.4; 1997 4.9; 1998 4.4; 1999 4.2 2000 4.0; Clinton
2001 4.7; 2002 5.8; 2003 6.0 2004 5.5 2005 5.1 2006 4.6 2007 4.6 2008 5.8 Bush 43
Look at the INCREASE in unemployment in the early years of Reagan administration and notice Reagan's tax cut increased unemployment. Not until 1986 was unemployment under Reagan 1986 less than in Carter's last year.
Look at the rise in unemployment under Bush 41.
FDR's New Deal PWA WPA CCC reduced Hoover's 25% to under 15% by 1937.
Nixon did not want to end the Vietnam War. He was forced to do so by Congress.
While Clinton did as president sign the repeal of the Glass Steagall separation of commercial and investment banking, there was overwhelming support and pressure from the GOP for that repeal.
Mr. Luettgen omits the deregulation under Reagan that caused the S&L crisis.
He omits the recession under Reagan where unemployment topped 10% and the Bush 41 recession.
Bush 43 and Greenspan ignored Fed Governor Gramlich's warnings [given BEFORE the crisis hit] and exhortations to crack down on subprime mortgages
Let’s look at unemployment rates
1976 7.7; 1977 7.1; 1978 6.1; 1979 5.8; 1980 7.1; Carter
1981 7.6; 1982 9.7; 1983 9.6; 1984 7.5; 1985 7.2; 1986 7.0; 1987 6.2; 1988 5.5 Reagan
1989 5.3; 1990 5.1; 1991 6.8; 1992 7.5; Bush 41
1993 6.9; 1994 6.1; 1995 4.5; 1996 5.4; 1997 4.9; 1998 4.4; 1999 4.2 2000 4.0; Clinton
2001 4.7; 2002 5.8; 2003 6.0 2004 5.5 2005 5.1 2006 4.6 2007 4.6 2008 5.8 Bush 43
Look at the INCREASE in unemployment in the early years of Reagan administration and notice Reagan's tax cut increased unemployment. Not until 1986 was unemployment under Reagan 1986 less than in Carter's last year.
Look at the rise in unemployment under Bush 41.
FDR's New Deal PWA WPA CCC reduced Hoover's 25% to under 15% by 1937.
190
Republicans favor rentier-favorable policies. This has been shown to depress growth not just in recent studies, but by long term statistician/historian-economists like Thomas Piketty. When the rentier is able to collect rent for resources, instead of allowing that surplus to be used for innovations and rewarding the middle class who then spend into the broad-based economy, inventions stop, resource-owners prosper. It's no accident growth slows to the 1% range Piketty shows us.
Another thing: Presidential elections are a lagging indicator. When times are good, people feel they need less government and they elect Republicans. When that doesn't work out and there are recessions from under-spending into the economy, they want more government to stimulate the economy and provide a safety net, and they elect Democrats. So Democrats are more likely to come into office at the bottom of the economic cycle, and Republicans more likely to come in at the top.
Another thing: Presidential elections are a lagging indicator. When times are good, people feel they need less government and they elect Republicans. When that doesn't work out and there are recessions from under-spending into the economy, they want more government to stimulate the economy and provide a safety net, and they elect Democrats. So Democrats are more likely to come into office at the bottom of the economic cycle, and Republicans more likely to come in at the top.
526
I think the phrase you're looking for is "if you want to live like Republicans you need to vote Democratic"
7
Excellent!
3
Inventions stop? Who are you kidding. Part of labotr's problem is that it is rapidly being replaced by invention: robots, drones....the list goes on. The probems we face are far more serious than just tweaking the tax code or reasserting the power of unions. Who are they going to organize--people who fly drones?
2
Every Republican presidency of the twentieth century managed to include a financial crisis, recession or depression, according to data from the National Bureau of Economic Research.
George W. Bush - 2007-2008 Financial Crisis, Great Recession
George H.W. Bush- 1990-91 Recession
Ronald Reagan -1981-82 Double Dip Recession
Gerald Ford -1973-75 Recession
Richard Nixon- 1969-70 Recession
Dwight Eisenhower- 1953, 1958 Recessions
Herbert Hoover- Financial Crash, Great Depression
Coolidge- 1926-27 Recession; Harding- 1923-24 Recession, W.H .Taft- 1907 Financial Panic followed by Recession, Theodore Roosevelt- 1902-04 Recession.
The Obama and Clinton administrations have so far produced 30 million jobs, the Bush administrations less than a million new private sector jobs, despite all those tax cuts for the rich. Policies matter.
No wonder this is a Republican party now completely dependent upon deceit for an election strategy. It's hard to sell a century of fiscal incompetence and mismanagement and then claim you're the fiscally responsible party of the "job creators", when your actual record is a continuing disaster for everyone but those at the top of the income/wealth pyramid. So the lying, and the efforts at media control through propaganda, just becomes more brazen.
George W. Bush - 2007-2008 Financial Crisis, Great Recession
George H.W. Bush- 1990-91 Recession
Ronald Reagan -1981-82 Double Dip Recession
Gerald Ford -1973-75 Recession
Richard Nixon- 1969-70 Recession
Dwight Eisenhower- 1953, 1958 Recessions
Herbert Hoover- Financial Crash, Great Depression
Coolidge- 1926-27 Recession; Harding- 1923-24 Recession, W.H .Taft- 1907 Financial Panic followed by Recession, Theodore Roosevelt- 1902-04 Recession.
The Obama and Clinton administrations have so far produced 30 million jobs, the Bush administrations less than a million new private sector jobs, despite all those tax cuts for the rich. Policies matter.
No wonder this is a Republican party now completely dependent upon deceit for an election strategy. It's hard to sell a century of fiscal incompetence and mismanagement and then claim you're the fiscally responsible party of the "job creators", when your actual record is a continuing disaster for everyone but those at the top of the income/wealth pyramid. So the lying, and the efforts at media control through propaganda, just becomes more brazen.
678
@Reality Based: "No wonder this is a Republican party now completely dependent upon deceit for an election strategy." Reminds me of much but these come to mind immediately:
1. Mr Conservative Brooks: Lamenting recently how the US lost the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Iran. The war machine wants a new war.
2. Economical debacles in Kansas and Wisconsin based on deceit.
1. Mr Conservative Brooks: Lamenting recently how the US lost the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Iran. The war machine wants a new war.
2. Economical debacles in Kansas and Wisconsin based on deceit.
3
Recessions are not a uniquely Republican phenomenon: they occurred under Wilson, FDR, Truman, Carter. http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html
It should be added that the economic policies of Teddy Roosevelt and Taft, particularly as to money, banking and taxation, were in line with those favored by the Democratic Party since 1932.
It should be added that the economic policies of Teddy Roosevelt and Taft, particularly as to money, banking and taxation, were in line with those favored by the Democratic Party since 1932.
1
It's that "Big Lie" strategy. So great with an ignorant voter pool.
Soviet propagandists could learn a thing or two from Reagan's revisionist minions.
From selling his placement on Mt. Rushmore to denying his planned explosion of our deficits, they specialize in changing history, which the current crop of GOP "candidates" are happy to reinforce.
From selling his placement on Mt. Rushmore to denying his planned explosion of our deficits, they specialize in changing history, which the current crop of GOP "candidates" are happy to reinforce.
55
The real GOP enemies are truth and its tricky pal, facts
Their ideas don't work, so thay have to either dissemble
or change the subject. Look Martha, there's an immigrant
mowing our lawn/
Their ideas don't work, so thay have to either dissemble
or change the subject. Look Martha, there's an immigrant
mowing our lawn/
142
And math, don't forget the math.
All a debate moderator has to do is ask a GOPer to do the math on their proposed tax policies and they'll cry "liberal media bias!" or "no more gotcha questions!" - ah, the poor babies.
All a debate moderator has to do is ask a GOPer to do the math on their proposed tax policies and they'll cry "liberal media bias!" or "no more gotcha questions!" - ah, the poor babies.
231
"The real GOP enemies are truth and its tricky pal, facts"
It's pretty clear the American right has no problem, either tactically or ethically, slaying truth and facts and can clearly avoid paying any electoral price for the outright lies. That's because the institutions of society responsible for responding to the right's naked lies have shirked their responsibilities. That's the media, the Democrats and political opposition at every level.
"Their ideas don't work, so thay have to either dissemble or change the subject."
Their ideas do work, and they work exactly as intended. What the right islying about -- and they know they're lying about it -- is the objectives of their policies. Those policies are intended to deliver for the plutocracy and punish/rob from everybody else. That's the objective and that's exactly what they do. Of course that objective can't be in the marketing brochure. So they lie about what the policies are intended to do.
Too bad nobody will go to the trouble to point that out.
It's pretty clear the American right has no problem, either tactically or ethically, slaying truth and facts and can clearly avoid paying any electoral price for the outright lies. That's because the institutions of society responsible for responding to the right's naked lies have shirked their responsibilities. That's the media, the Democrats and political opposition at every level.
"Their ideas don't work, so thay have to either dissemble or change the subject."
Their ideas do work, and they work exactly as intended. What the right islying about -- and they know they're lying about it -- is the objectives of their policies. Those policies are intended to deliver for the plutocracy and punish/rob from everybody else. That's the objective and that's exactly what they do. Of course that objective can't be in the marketing brochure. So they lie about what the policies are intended to do.
Too bad nobody will go to the trouble to point that out.
10
Tim Kane: One of my favorite political speeches of modern times was Bill Clinton at the 2012 DNC, when he said
"What new ideas did we bring to Washington? I always give a one-word answer: Arithmetic."
What made that so astounding is this: Arithmetic is true, and independently verifiable, whether you want it to be or not. And the Republican Party doesn't want it to be true. As their new standardbearer Paul Ryan has demonstrated repeatedly by putting out budget proposals where the numbers don't add up.
"What new ideas did we bring to Washington? I always give a one-word answer: Arithmetic."
What made that so astounding is this: Arithmetic is true, and independently verifiable, whether you want it to be or not. And the Republican Party doesn't want it to be true. As their new standardbearer Paul Ryan has demonstrated repeatedly by putting out budget proposals where the numbers don't add up.
13
Facts are stubborn things--except when they're denied by the GOP.
25
When it comes to the subject of tax cuts, I can't help but think of what President Obama said in his speech during the 2012 DNC.
Another note is what is up with the fixation of tax cuts? For what purpose do they serve and what they do accomplish exactly? Why do they keep advocating that which consistently comes up short?
One has to examine the logic and the inferences that the nominees aren't talking about. Think examining statements is hard? Try examining and pinpointing what they're saying but not saying.
Anyways, why the fixation w/ tax cuts? It seems to me that they are making the argument that the economy and the beneficiaries of tax cuts are one and the same. That the fortunes of the poor accompany those of the tax cut beneficiaries. You could call it the coattail effect.
That if the beneficiaries receive the tax cuts, in their savings induced generosity, the poor's benefit when the beneficiaries benefit.
Knowing how profits and savings is treated, both in corporate and individual behaviors, we already know what happens. People don't become more charitable or altruistic. They merely reinvest in more revenue generating activities.
To say that somehow the beneficiaries of tax cuts will then turn around and help those below one is the epitome of ignorance. Using business strategies to promote charity is the height of naive.
We have the data to support it. The poor aren't helped by the beneficiaries of the tax cuts.
It's a implausible story that ignores greed.
Another note is what is up with the fixation of tax cuts? For what purpose do they serve and what they do accomplish exactly? Why do they keep advocating that which consistently comes up short?
One has to examine the logic and the inferences that the nominees aren't talking about. Think examining statements is hard? Try examining and pinpointing what they're saying but not saying.
Anyways, why the fixation w/ tax cuts? It seems to me that they are making the argument that the economy and the beneficiaries of tax cuts are one and the same. That the fortunes of the poor accompany those of the tax cut beneficiaries. You could call it the coattail effect.
That if the beneficiaries receive the tax cuts, in their savings induced generosity, the poor's benefit when the beneficiaries benefit.
Knowing how profits and savings is treated, both in corporate and individual behaviors, we already know what happens. People don't become more charitable or altruistic. They merely reinvest in more revenue generating activities.
To say that somehow the beneficiaries of tax cuts will then turn around and help those below one is the epitome of ignorance. Using business strategies to promote charity is the height of naive.
We have the data to support it. The poor aren't helped by the beneficiaries of the tax cuts.
It's a implausible story that ignores greed.
35
The business cycle seems unavoidable regardless of who is elected. Quite likely it has favored Democrats in recent years as far as economic growth goes.
19
Oh sure, business goes through cycles, but it's not as though hard luck explains the consistently sorrier results of Republicans. Professor Krugman has labored hard since the Great Recession to explain that looser monetary policy can help, but that greater fiscal stimulus is the only sensible answer to a severe recession. Democrats have always pushed for government spending that benefits working class people and Republicans have pushed only for things that benefit the very wealthy for around forty years, so let's not pretend the GOP and their sorry results are mere victims of economic fluctuation and fate.
125
South Carolina Times readers have opened a Facebook page to further discussion of the Times posts and views in the context of South Carolina's communities; it is open to all. We invite you to meet other Times readers!
A South Carolina Readers Community for the New York Times https://www.facebook.com/SCNYTfans/
A South Carolina Readers Community for the New York Times https://www.facebook.com/SCNYTfans/
5
"Democrats have always pushed for government spending that benefits working class people"
Gary has put his finger on an important point, but it is not only fairness and morality that make the Democrats right. It is simple accounting.
The deficit measures the net flow of money FROM the federal gov TO people, businesses and state & local govs.We NEED more money as the economy grows.
This money does no good if it goes to the people who do not need it, who will not spend it, but who use it for speculation or if it sits in their coffers. To help the economy it must go to the people who need it and will spend it thus providing decent jobs for others and so on.
Gary has put his finger on an important point, but it is not only fairness and morality that make the Democrats right. It is simple accounting.
The deficit measures the net flow of money FROM the federal gov TO people, businesses and state & local govs.We NEED more money as the economy grows.
This money does no good if it goes to the people who do not need it, who will not spend it, but who use it for speculation or if it sits in their coffers. To help the economy it must go to the people who need it and will spend it thus providing decent jobs for others and so on.
5
I find a line from the play, 1776, an apt explanation for those who vote the straight Republican ticket despite it being contrary to their own economic self interest:
John Dickinson: Don't forget that most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor.
John Dickinson: Don't forget that most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor.
1053
I'm not sure your analogy works, but perhaps I haven't understood your intent? Those with nothing who still vote Republican in 2015 are helping to ensure that the possibility of becoming rich is nothing more than a fanciful daydream. The Republican party of today is not a party of pre-Revolutionary American ideals and animosity toward colonial exploitation. Rather it cynically plays on anachronistic themes to fool their poor, uneducated base into believing the slim possibility of striking gold in a system stacked against them is enough to fight for. This is not 1776.
2
It would be nice if it were so rational, but Nixon's Southern Strategy" was based on emotional hatred, which the modern GOP still practices.
4
Yes, I do believe that is true. Of course, the irony is that they see that possibility in a Republican agenda which is overtly designed for only those who are already wealthy.
4
"And if someone does point to that record, you know what they’ll do: Start yelling about media bias."
Or switch to some other subject. Republicans still believe the CRA caused the 2008 crash and not Paulson pulling the plug on his investment bank competitors.
Or switch to some other subject. Republicans still believe the CRA caused the 2008 crash and not Paulson pulling the plug on his investment bank competitors.
15
It's more than just the usual Dem/Gop polarization.
See book by Steven Hill "Raw Deal: How the 'Uber Economy' and Runaway Capitalism Are Screwing American Workers". He spoke at a CUNY event with NYT Eduardo Porter. The past system of secure employment with benefits is weakened, leaving millions unprotected against an array of economic calamities, especially for millions of p/t, on call or contract workers. They are ‘Free’, on their own.
Our system is not set up to protect millions without full time jobs with benefits, pensions, and worker security.
See NYT editorial How Mergers Damage the Economy. And with comments. Monopolies undermine the very competition and entrepreneurship the rw uses in sloganeering against govt regulation.
See NYT, “Paul Singer, Influential Billionaire, Throws Support to Marco Rubio for President.” Over 900 comments, making points that most on the media avoid about the sale of democracy.
We wait for ‘breaking news’ on which candidates the billionaire sponsors of our elections will shift to next for ROI. Which nominees will they allow us to choose from when we stand in line on voting day? Where are the columns on how Citizens United furthers in plain sight the continued transfer of power and wealth away from the majority up to the elites?
Contrast this with other nations’ publicly financed elections, their real h/c for every citizen and worker protections for all, not depending on location or the whims of individual state governors.
See book by Steven Hill "Raw Deal: How the 'Uber Economy' and Runaway Capitalism Are Screwing American Workers". He spoke at a CUNY event with NYT Eduardo Porter. The past system of secure employment with benefits is weakened, leaving millions unprotected against an array of economic calamities, especially for millions of p/t, on call or contract workers. They are ‘Free’, on their own.
Our system is not set up to protect millions without full time jobs with benefits, pensions, and worker security.
See NYT editorial How Mergers Damage the Economy. And with comments. Monopolies undermine the very competition and entrepreneurship the rw uses in sloganeering against govt regulation.
See NYT, “Paul Singer, Influential Billionaire, Throws Support to Marco Rubio for President.” Over 900 comments, making points that most on the media avoid about the sale of democracy.
We wait for ‘breaking news’ on which candidates the billionaire sponsors of our elections will shift to next for ROI. Which nominees will they allow us to choose from when we stand in line on voting day? Where are the columns on how Citizens United furthers in plain sight the continued transfer of power and wealth away from the majority up to the elites?
Contrast this with other nations’ publicly financed elections, their real h/c for every citizen and worker protections for all, not depending on location or the whims of individual state governors.
68
Not to mention mandatory voting.
3
Besides dishonest politicians, voracious donors and timid media, it's only fair to give some of the blame to voters who are alarmingly willing to be duped. I'm not sure I've ever seen an explanation why American voters are more susceptible to myths and fairy tales than other nations, but it certainly seems that way.
137
Might it have something to do with the unwillingness and encouragement of the Republican establishment and their minions to not serve the country?
After years of letting insults and false claims slide, the party is now faced with a large part of an electorate that really does believe that the problems we face have been caused by the fact that we elected a Muslim to be President even though he was not born in this country and - God forbid, is black.
After years of letting insults and false claims slide, the party is now faced with a large part of an electorate that really does believe that the problems we face have been caused by the fact that we elected a Muslim to be President even though he was not born in this country and - God forbid, is black.
1
I think there's a reason that the Republican evangelicals buy the "trickle-down" argument. They, being devoutly religious, already accept religion's "buy this pig in a poke" sales pitch about heaven: "Give us your money now and you may qualify for a wonderful prize later on." Neither heaven nor trickle-down prosperity have ever been shown to exist, but that doesn't bother the true believers. In greed we trust.
3
Then there are the people who refuse to vote because they didn't get the candidate they preferred as previously mentioned. These people are no different then the people who are duped by Republican propaganda. Democrats need to pull together and vote for the democratic candidate.
2
While it's true to anyone who uses data (a qualification that excludes most Republicans) that the economy does better under Democrats, many things take time.
Bush, sr convinced Saddam to annex Kuwait, and then pointed out to Saudi Arabia that he might continue to annex more Gulf states. The money Saudi and other Gulf State monarchs promised to the US for saving them from the threat of Saddam flowed into the US economy when Clinton was president.
Clinton pushed through a repeal of the Glass ceiling on bankers' profits just before he left office. The easily predictable calamity occurred when Bush, jr was president.
Since actions beneficial or harmful to the economy sometimes take years to manifest their benefit or harm, it's difficult to properly assign blame.
(Except in the case of Bush, jr, who made a complete mess of everything he touched.)
Bush, sr convinced Saddam to annex Kuwait, and then pointed out to Saudi Arabia that he might continue to annex more Gulf states. The money Saudi and other Gulf State monarchs promised to the US for saving them from the threat of Saddam flowed into the US economy when Clinton was president.
Clinton pushed through a repeal of the Glass ceiling on bankers' profits just before he left office. The easily predictable calamity occurred when Bush, jr was president.
Since actions beneficial or harmful to the economy sometimes take years to manifest their benefit or harm, it's difficult to properly assign blame.
(Except in the case of Bush, jr, who made a complete mess of everything he touched.)
16
Consider the orders of magnitude:
The combined effect of Bush jr policies was to shift over $12 trillion (with a 'T') from the demand-side 99% to the supply-side 1% over the course of the 1st decade of the millennium - $5 trillion in taxes alone.
A trillion is a lot of money.
They did this in the face of clear and overwhelming evidence that the economy was in supply side saturation BEFORE they entered office (dot com bubble, deflationary pressure in the 2001 recession, pressure to deregulate).
The Bushies covered their tracks with cheap & easy credit. That caused a housing bubble. When the credit ran out, demand imploded, bringing the finance sector down with it.
Supply side saturation is when you have too MUCH supply RELATIVE to demand. - In that case, you get deflationary pressure (as Dr. K has noted, low-flation is as bad as deflation) + bubbles + demands for deregulation.
Supply saturation means that investors, in the aggregate, can no longer get good ROI on their investments. So when a subsector comes along with good ROI, such as hi-tech which has its own latent demand so good ROI, Investors flood into the sector creating the bubble. And because investors can't get good ROI from orthodox investing they demand access to unorthodox investing, i.e. deregulation.
We entered into supply side policy era in 1980. In 1997 we hit the saturation point but kept going (intensifying even) which lead to 2008 collapse. It's 2015 and still no demand side bias policy shifts!
The combined effect of Bush jr policies was to shift over $12 trillion (with a 'T') from the demand-side 99% to the supply-side 1% over the course of the 1st decade of the millennium - $5 trillion in taxes alone.
A trillion is a lot of money.
They did this in the face of clear and overwhelming evidence that the economy was in supply side saturation BEFORE they entered office (dot com bubble, deflationary pressure in the 2001 recession, pressure to deregulate).
The Bushies covered their tracks with cheap & easy credit. That caused a housing bubble. When the credit ran out, demand imploded, bringing the finance sector down with it.
Supply side saturation is when you have too MUCH supply RELATIVE to demand. - In that case, you get deflationary pressure (as Dr. K has noted, low-flation is as bad as deflation) + bubbles + demands for deregulation.
Supply saturation means that investors, in the aggregate, can no longer get good ROI on their investments. So when a subsector comes along with good ROI, such as hi-tech which has its own latent demand so good ROI, Investors flood into the sector creating the bubble. And because investors can't get good ROI from orthodox investing they demand access to unorthodox investing, i.e. deregulation.
We entered into supply side policy era in 1980. In 1997 we hit the saturation point but kept going (intensifying even) which lead to 2008 collapse. It's 2015 and still no demand side bias policy shifts!
37
Well said, thanks.
Now we need those sentiments compressed into a patriotic, sound bite with biblical overtones to offer to GOP base.
Meanwhile, down @ the farm, I believe Pfizer has now joined the ranks of the corporate tax inversion flock...basically legal, global shopping for HQs with lower tax rates--currently there is about $2.5 trillion parked outside the US.
We see the continued growth of the largest multi-national corporations in the history of mankind and all I hear is that we need less government, less regulation and more 'freedom' for the umber-powerful.
This does not bode well for the near or distant future.
Now we need those sentiments compressed into a patriotic, sound bite with biblical overtones to offer to GOP base.
Meanwhile, down @ the farm, I believe Pfizer has now joined the ranks of the corporate tax inversion flock...basically legal, global shopping for HQs with lower tax rates--currently there is about $2.5 trillion parked outside the US.
We see the continued growth of the largest multi-national corporations in the history of mankind and all I hear is that we need less government, less regulation and more 'freedom' for the umber-powerful.
This does not bode well for the near or distant future.
2
The Democrats are the ones who mystify me. We know what to expect from Republican blowhards - tax cuts for the rich leading to prosperity for everyone. Smoke and mirrors with no support in economic theory nor in history. Why don't Democrats run on those facts. Somehow they feel the need to hide the need to strengthen regulation, Social Security and other important government roles necessary in a balanced economy. Let's see how Hillary reacts to Forina lies - will she hide behind ambiguity or retort with some in your face facts. Perhaps this will be an indication of what to expect in 2016.
30
Sec. Clinton is an inside the beltway corporate Democrat. She will not challenge the economic hegemony of Wall Street and the multinational corporations nor their right to control Washington politically and determine economic policy. She will seek "common ground" and get a few table scraps for the middle class and almost nothing for the working poor. That is what we have to look forward to.
1
Excellent question. It seems to me one answer may be that Democrats don't live faith-based lives so much as Republicans do. They worry about not having everything quite worked out (re our current president) whereas Republicans not only never admit to doubts but keep them as hidden as possible if they do.
2
The irony is that the ‘liberals’ are the true conservatives---they want to restore and protect America’s proud democratic traditions of equality and upward mobility, of union bargaining, fair taxes, of some cooperation by business and govt that once created the world’s most prosperous middle class.
All this is abandoned by the GOP, the real radicals, whose dogma push wealth upward to un-American concentrations for the elites, and destabilize our economy and weaken democracy.
The ‘liberals’ are the ones who want to conserve the prudent, responsible, govt regulations that protected the US from crashes for over 60 years. Funhouse mirror distortions of Right, Left, Center let the Trickle Down hoax seem plausible, even as millions of jobs were sent out of the country. To redress economic grievances and restore balance by direct govt actions is now Left Wing, thus not too respectable in mainstream media.
Our concentration of wealth/power was achieved without actual censorship or dictatorship. We are proud of the 1st amendment, the very thing used by the Court to justify big money buying our candidates. The media is beset by conformity, to keep influence. The rw uses our founding ideals of freedom from big govt to seduce the masses against their own interests.
We’re still the only 1st world nation without true h/c for all or accepted employee protections and union bargaining power. Our candidates depend on the beneficence of billionaires, then ask for our votes.
All this is abandoned by the GOP, the real radicals, whose dogma push wealth upward to un-American concentrations for the elites, and destabilize our economy and weaken democracy.
The ‘liberals’ are the ones who want to conserve the prudent, responsible, govt regulations that protected the US from crashes for over 60 years. Funhouse mirror distortions of Right, Left, Center let the Trickle Down hoax seem plausible, even as millions of jobs were sent out of the country. To redress economic grievances and restore balance by direct govt actions is now Left Wing, thus not too respectable in mainstream media.
Our concentration of wealth/power was achieved without actual censorship or dictatorship. We are proud of the 1st amendment, the very thing used by the Court to justify big money buying our candidates. The media is beset by conformity, to keep influence. The rw uses our founding ideals of freedom from big govt to seduce the masses against their own interests.
We’re still the only 1st world nation without true h/c for all or accepted employee protections and union bargaining power. Our candidates depend on the beneficence of billionaires, then ask for our votes.
269
Bravo for pointing out that Democrats are the true Conservatives.
2
I often think that part of the explanation for better economic results under Democrats boils down to this..
The Republican economic agenda is built on ideology which is immune to facts. In their bones, the Republicans just know that they are right, the real world numbers and results be danged. The Democratic economic agenda tends to be more fact based -- we know what works, let's do that -- with less wishful thinking.
Put it another way: Republican economic policy tends to actually have deleterious consequences for the economy. Democrats aren't nearly so bad about doing things that actually hurt growth...like maybe demanding steep budget cuts in a depressed economy.
The Republican economic agenda is built on ideology which is immune to facts. In their bones, the Republicans just know that they are right, the real world numbers and results be danged. The Democratic economic agenda tends to be more fact based -- we know what works, let's do that -- with less wishful thinking.
Put it another way: Republican economic policy tends to actually have deleterious consequences for the economy. Democrats aren't nearly so bad about doing things that actually hurt growth...like maybe demanding steep budget cuts in a depressed economy.
24
To Republicans, the real world is a special case.
11
The media bias is curious. Because essentially, we seem to be run by a few corporations anyway, whether there is a Democrat or a Repubican in the White House, even as Krugman attempts to show there is a difference in the parties. No one dares to truly upset the elite and if they do, they are dissed as irrelevant or too radical. And so we have little coverage of someone who is actually offering a way to change the fundamental structure of how things are, Bernie Sanders or even another offering like Jill Stein. I bet most people have never even heard of Jill Stein! Yet she offers something different, that with an open mind, offers real solutions to our problems. If you are not in the two party system, you are automatically out of the question, because that puts you out of the control of the massive grip big commercial interests have on our country. Power doesn't give up easily. The media is owned by it, and so are both of the parties. A good example of this are the Presidential debates, owned by a corporation that is owned by both the Republicans and the Democrats, that chooses who can be in the debates and what questions can be asked. Talk about a rigged game! (No Debate by George Farah). Yes, the public wants SS expanded! Bernie Sanders offers this. Watch him pull ahead in the pack, once the word is really out there. And despite the black out on him, people are circumventing the old media outlets and getting their news online from many other outlets. That's the real news.
46
Economics is dominated by the law of supply & demand.
So policy wise governments can emphasize either supply or demand.
Supply bias means shifting resources to the rich so they'll build more supply. Demand means shifting resources to the masses so they'll buy more. So GOPers ALWAYS pursue supply policies and Democrats usually pursue demand policies.
But they aren't symmetrical. Ours is a free-MARKET system. Market is euphemism for consumption/demand. In our economy 70% of economic activity is related to demand. So demand policies more often have more leverage & efficacy than supply. That's why I think Democrats have a better track record.
Also policies can reach saturation points but that's arrived at far earlier with supply:
When there's too much supply RELATIVE to demand you get deflation, investment bubbles (because of low ROI, investors over react and flood sectors that develop decent ROI, such as new tech which brings with it its own latent demand creating a bubble) & cries for deregulation (because orthodox investing doesn't bring good ROI, investors demand access to unorthodox investing, such as subprime loans, payday loans, etc).
The dot com bubble in 1998 & the deflationary recession that followed indicated supply side saturation. Unfortunately Bush pored coals on supply shifting another $12+trillion to the 1%/supply side from the 99% demand. When credit ran out demand imploded in 2008.
Its been 17 years &yet only Bernie is pushing demand side bias policies.
So policy wise governments can emphasize either supply or demand.
Supply bias means shifting resources to the rich so they'll build more supply. Demand means shifting resources to the masses so they'll buy more. So GOPers ALWAYS pursue supply policies and Democrats usually pursue demand policies.
But they aren't symmetrical. Ours is a free-MARKET system. Market is euphemism for consumption/demand. In our economy 70% of economic activity is related to demand. So demand policies more often have more leverage & efficacy than supply. That's why I think Democrats have a better track record.
Also policies can reach saturation points but that's arrived at far earlier with supply:
When there's too much supply RELATIVE to demand you get deflation, investment bubbles (because of low ROI, investors over react and flood sectors that develop decent ROI, such as new tech which brings with it its own latent demand creating a bubble) & cries for deregulation (because orthodox investing doesn't bring good ROI, investors demand access to unorthodox investing, such as subprime loans, payday loans, etc).
The dot com bubble in 1998 & the deflationary recession that followed indicated supply side saturation. Unfortunately Bush pored coals on supply shifting another $12+trillion to the 1%/supply side from the 99% demand. When credit ran out demand imploded in 2008.
Its been 17 years &yet only Bernie is pushing demand side bias policies.
40
"Ours is a free-MARKET system."
Except, it's not. A free market system would provide protection from outside interference, including government interference. You cannot produce certain items, you cannot sell certain items, you cannot buy certain items. These prohibitions are not imposed by a free market - they are imposed by government interference.
Naysayers will proclaim that this interference is to protect civilians from Businesses Behaving Badly - but the truth is that the unintended consequences are worse than the bad behavior. These consequences are: Rising prices and higher cost of living.
Nobody's life is made easier by government regulation, just like no one's job is made easier by having to follow new rules at the workplace. Each regulation costs businesses more in terms of time and therefore money - and that cost is passed along to the consumer.
Except, it's not. A free market system would provide protection from outside interference, including government interference. You cannot produce certain items, you cannot sell certain items, you cannot buy certain items. These prohibitions are not imposed by a free market - they are imposed by government interference.
Naysayers will proclaim that this interference is to protect civilians from Businesses Behaving Badly - but the truth is that the unintended consequences are worse than the bad behavior. These consequences are: Rising prices and higher cost of living.
Nobody's life is made easier by government regulation, just like no one's job is made easier by having to follow new rules at the workplace. Each regulation costs businesses more in terms of time and therefore money - and that cost is passed along to the consumer.
2
I'll concede that it is a mixed economic system that is basically free market oriented. I'll go even further and say that the United States has only one governing principle: free contract. In such a society the only thing that matters is bargaining power. Bargaining power can be manifested in many ways. Micro-bargaining power, in that I have 3 apples and 5 people want an apple, so I have a bargaining power advantage, and macro bargaining power, in which I buy congressmen and they make it illegal for anyone else to plant apple trees for some reason or another (perhaps fictional, perhaps not). But its all bargaining and its all driven by demand.
Second of all, I would say some people's lives are made better by government regulation. Regulation means I can buy meat or get on a airplane with pretty good confidence that it is safe.
Also, government regulation made the lives of slaves better when it band the practice of slavery. Now you could argue that slavery was imposed by government. That might be true, but it was maintained by a minority (the owner) through the use of gun powder. Alternatively we might just eliminate government entirely then we'd all be free, but by that token, we'd operate under the law of the jungle, i.e. might makes right ("freedom for the pike means death to the minnow). The first thing men in nonstate societies do is evolve from law of the jungle to vendetta law: eye for an eye. But in reality, no one prefers vendetta over state based justice.
Second of all, I would say some people's lives are made better by government regulation. Regulation means I can buy meat or get on a airplane with pretty good confidence that it is safe.
Also, government regulation made the lives of slaves better when it band the practice of slavery. Now you could argue that slavery was imposed by government. That might be true, but it was maintained by a minority (the owner) through the use of gun powder. Alternatively we might just eliminate government entirely then we'd all be free, but by that token, we'd operate under the law of the jungle, i.e. might makes right ("freedom for the pike means death to the minnow). The first thing men in nonstate societies do is evolve from law of the jungle to vendetta law: eye for an eye. But in reality, no one prefers vendetta over state based justice.
9
"Nobody's life is made better by government regulation"?
Personally, i like having clean water, unadulterated food, traffic rules, environmental rules, etc. And I think that because we have these, all of our lives are easier than they were for the generations before that didn't have them.
Personally, i like having clean water, unadulterated food, traffic rules, environmental rules, etc. And I think that because we have these, all of our lives are easier than they were for the generations before that didn't have them.
8
The problem with comparing Democratic and Republican fiscal policy is that Republicans have known only one game since the Carter presidency: obstructionism. People still put Carter down as a failed president, though Republicans blocked nearly everything he proposed. The seventies were turbulent times, but as President Krugman has often explained, they were also a period of solid growth that ended with a relatively brief period of stagflation brought on by an oil shock.
And during the latest financial crisis, the worst since the Great Depression, Republicans attempted to block emergency relief for distressed homeowners and for the unemployed, even as they continued to advocate ever more deregulation and tax breaks for large corporations and for the wealthy. Let's don't pretend for one second then to believe when Blinder and Watson tell us that monetary and fiscal policy can't explain better outcomes under Democrats than under Republicans.
Democrats have led the charge for any and everything that has benefited working people, and Republicans have supported only the interests of the very wealthy -- Blinder and Watson concluding anything else reminds me of the nickname for Blinder and Robinson – Blind 'em and Rob 'em.
And during the latest financial crisis, the worst since the Great Depression, Republicans attempted to block emergency relief for distressed homeowners and for the unemployed, even as they continued to advocate ever more deregulation and tax breaks for large corporations and for the wealthy. Let's don't pretend for one second then to believe when Blinder and Watson tell us that monetary and fiscal policy can't explain better outcomes under Democrats than under Republicans.
Democrats have led the charge for any and everything that has benefited working people, and Republicans have supported only the interests of the very wealthy -- Blinder and Watson concluding anything else reminds me of the nickname for Blinder and Robinson – Blind 'em and Rob 'em.
92
Pres Carter now tells fearless truth. The Times and other news ignored his recent warnings that we are getting to be an oligarchy since it takes millions to win office--for pres, gov, congress. Anyone without big money backing can’t become a serious contender, thus we're deprived of their policies.
Citizens United, hardly mentioned on this NYT page, sealed the deal, using rights of 1st amendment free speech as a distorted excuse. That and Trickle Down, working together, are the 2 biggest hoaxes ever pulled in a democracy.
I only ran into Carter's oligarch statement by accident after Bernie Sanders, who else, repeated it in an interview. Why has no NYT op ed piece discussed it, pro/con? They don't think it's significant enough to waste space on when an ex US pres uses the O word for our politics?
You could say that 21st C ‘aristos ’ are appropriating our wealth and productivity in what was once the land of upward mobility and meritocracy.
Citizens United, hardly mentioned on this NYT page, sealed the deal, using rights of 1st amendment free speech as a distorted excuse. That and Trickle Down, working together, are the 2 biggest hoaxes ever pulled in a democracy.
I only ran into Carter's oligarch statement by accident after Bernie Sanders, who else, repeated it in an interview. Why has no NYT op ed piece discussed it, pro/con? They don't think it's significant enough to waste space on when an ex US pres uses the O word for our politics?
You could say that 21st C ‘aristos ’ are appropriating our wealth and productivity in what was once the land of upward mobility and meritocracy.
33
Yeah, thanks for this comment Meredith - it's disturbing how little publicity Carter's statement received, despite its horrifying truth. To this day, both the media and most of the rest of the country ignores Carter at their own peril. No president since has been fit to shine Carter's shoes, and certainly no Republican has been.
13
What most surprises us about the Blinder/Watson paper is that in the 70 years - 7 continuous back to back to back to back to back to back decades since 1945 - not even once has a GOP'er prez accidentally slipped up and out performed a Dem:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/13/hillary-clint...
Across 16 administrations - 9 GOP'er, 7 Dem, giving GOP'ers a numerical advvantage - through thick/thin, various Fed heads/Treas. Secretaries, Dems have always produced, whilst GOP'ers have batted 1.000 always lagging, rain or shine.
The time period covers the entire working life of almost all 320 million Americans - this is called ' a track record ', to put it modestly.
A track record that even includes the Obama years, years that began with a new Democratic prez being handed the worst economic wreckage in at least 3 generations, in starkest contrast to the serial Clinton budget surpluses handed GOP'ers in 2001, an economy that even noted Ayn Rand-er Alan Greenspan testified to Congress on Dubya's 5th day in office (Jan. 25, 2001) was on track to pay off the entire national debt (GOPers' claimed Holy Grail) by the end of 2010.
We personally think GOPers' fear of inflation's effects on 1.0%-ers and above is what causes this track record, with Democrats' record showing inflation out-paced by growth is a good thing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/13/hillary-clint...
Across 16 administrations - 9 GOP'er, 7 Dem, giving GOP'ers a numerical advvantage - through thick/thin, various Fed heads/Treas. Secretaries, Dems have always produced, whilst GOP'ers have batted 1.000 always lagging, rain or shine.
The time period covers the entire working life of almost all 320 million Americans - this is called ' a track record ', to put it modestly.
A track record that even includes the Obama years, years that began with a new Democratic prez being handed the worst economic wreckage in at least 3 generations, in starkest contrast to the serial Clinton budget surpluses handed GOP'ers in 2001, an economy that even noted Ayn Rand-er Alan Greenspan testified to Congress on Dubya's 5th day in office (Jan. 25, 2001) was on track to pay off the entire national debt (GOPers' claimed Holy Grail) by the end of 2010.
We personally think GOPers' fear of inflation's effects on 1.0%-ers and above is what causes this track record, with Democrats' record showing inflation out-paced by growth is a good thing.
382
And comparing the average growth rate of 4.4% under Dems to the average rate of 2.9% under GOP'ers makes it plain the results aren't even close - this isn't a comparison where GOP losers " missed it by (only) thaaaaaat much ".
18
We have only paid off the debt once, in 1835, which was followed by the Panic if 1837 which started the longest depression in US histoy, When Gore proposed to pay off the debt, Robert Solow, A nobel winning economist, said, "He should wash his mouth out with soap."
1. We need money to conduct commerce.
2. As the economy grows it needs more and more money.
3. Money comes from the federal government via the FED,
4. The way money gets from the federal government to us is by federal spending.
5. The deficit measure the net flow of money from the federal government to people, businesses, and state & local governments.
6. The debt is the net accumulation of this money over time.
7. Too high debt or deficits have never hurt our economy while surpluses for a while have always done so.
8. As a percentage of GDP our public debt was about 50% higher in 1946. The period 1946 - 1973 was a period sometimes called the Great Prosperity during which real median household income surged 74%. In fact we INCREASED the debt in dollars by 75% during this period. What happened was as the economy grew, the debt became insignificant.
After WWI, we DECREASED the debt by 38% by 1929. Then what happened?
9. Ideas that may be appropriate for your personal finances do not apply to the finances of a huge country that lasts a long time, that can print as much money as it needs, and whose debt is in it's own currency.
1. We need money to conduct commerce.
2. As the economy grows it needs more and more money.
3. Money comes from the federal government via the FED,
4. The way money gets from the federal government to us is by federal spending.
5. The deficit measure the net flow of money from the federal government to people, businesses, and state & local governments.
6. The debt is the net accumulation of this money over time.
7. Too high debt or deficits have never hurt our economy while surpluses for a while have always done so.
8. As a percentage of GDP our public debt was about 50% higher in 1946. The period 1946 - 1973 was a period sometimes called the Great Prosperity during which real median household income surged 74%. In fact we INCREASED the debt in dollars by 75% during this period. What happened was as the economy grew, the debt became insignificant.
After WWI, we DECREASED the debt by 38% by 1929. Then what happened?
9. Ideas that may be appropriate for your personal finances do not apply to the finances of a huge country that lasts a long time, that can print as much money as it needs, and whose debt is in it's own currency.
8
len - We agree that it's neither desirable nor practical to ' pay off the debt ' for both economic and political reasons; we merely point out the fact that even Greenspan said the GOPers' professed goal was in reach and handed to them on a silver platter in 2001 - they promptly proceeded to muck things up, falling prey to the same all too human characteristics displayed in the '08 melt down: the inability to restrain their greed selves.
The erroneous policy of GOP'ers is one thing; their inability to keep from governing in a corrupt manner, when handed exactly what they say they want, is a character issue for GOPers' party as a whole, its leaders and its donor class.
Trashing of the serial Clinton budget surpluses by GOP'ers is the best way to highlight their flim-flam at work :)
The erroneous policy of GOP'ers is one thing; their inability to keep from governing in a corrupt manner, when handed exactly what they say they want, is a character issue for GOPers' party as a whole, its leaders and its donor class.
Trashing of the serial Clinton budget surpluses by GOP'ers is the best way to highlight their flim-flam at work :)
9
If current trends hold course, In 2016 the average voter will walk into the voting booth with this information -
# of private sector jobs created by President -
Obama: 8-10 million
Bush Jr: 0 (Zero, zilch, nada: actually negative 500k)
Clinton: 20+ million
Bush Sr: 1.5 million
Reagan: Ancient History
So, yeah, if you are Republican, then you want to, have to, need to lie on economics, and few lie unflinchingly better than Fiorina.
# of private sector jobs created by President -
Obama: 8-10 million
Bush Jr: 0 (Zero, zilch, nada: actually negative 500k)
Clinton: 20+ million
Bush Sr: 1.5 million
Reagan: Ancient History
So, yeah, if you are Republican, then you want to, have to, need to lie on economics, and few lie unflinchingly better than Fiorina.
731
The Echoplex (conservative media) is tasked with preventing "the average voter" from knowing any of these facts. Instead they will know the salesman's honeymoon version of rosy forecasts and Reagan's economic miracle restoring the country after Carter's hyperinflation.
3
It's that old devil Krugman, relax,
Although he is citing the facts,
Fox listeners don't care,
Believe the hot air
Contrived by some Koch financed hacks.
Climate science of course is a fake
All the Poor ever do is to take,
And that one tenth percent
Is a group heaven sent,
That never one meltdown would make!
Although he is citing the facts,
Fox listeners don't care,
Believe the hot air
Contrived by some Koch financed hacks.
Climate science of course is a fake
All the Poor ever do is to take,
And that one tenth percent
Is a group heaven sent,
That never one meltdown would make!
313
Epistemic closure is not limited to the right. Bernie Sanders is promising the moon, and his followers are buying it hook, line and sinker. Increase taxes on the rich? Adopt single-payer? Break up the big banks? All worthy goals, but how can they be realized with a Republican-controlled House, even if Dems regain the Senate?
Bernie answers that question with calls for a voter "revolution," presumably meaning a Democratic wave election in which the Democrats win back 30 seats to retake the House. How likely is that? Here's what the respected analyst, Stu Rothenberg says: http://wp.me/p3fVZw-16P
"As this cycle begins (and looking only at fundamentals), the most likely House outcome next year would be modest to substantial Democratic gains, ranging from as few as five to as many as 20 seats. Even at the upper limit of that range, the DCCC would still be a ways from the 30 seats the party needs for a majority.
"In fact, 30 seats is a big number. Since 1950, gains that large have occurred six times during midterm elections, when partisan waves often appear, but only twice in presidential years, in 1964 and 1980. And that’s an important reason why the GOP starts as the clear favorite to retain control of the House in 2016."
As to the likelihood of a wave election, the usually reliable Moody Analytics predicts a VERY CLOSE Democratic win in 2016. http://tinyurl.com/ohxofh8
Our first priority now should be reelecting a Democrat to the White House, not pie-in-the-sky promises.
Bernie answers that question with calls for a voter "revolution," presumably meaning a Democratic wave election in which the Democrats win back 30 seats to retake the House. How likely is that? Here's what the respected analyst, Stu Rothenberg says: http://wp.me/p3fVZw-16P
"As this cycle begins (and looking only at fundamentals), the most likely House outcome next year would be modest to substantial Democratic gains, ranging from as few as five to as many as 20 seats. Even at the upper limit of that range, the DCCC would still be a ways from the 30 seats the party needs for a majority.
"In fact, 30 seats is a big number. Since 1950, gains that large have occurred six times during midterm elections, when partisan waves often appear, but only twice in presidential years, in 1964 and 1980. And that’s an important reason why the GOP starts as the clear favorite to retain control of the House in 2016."
As to the likelihood of a wave election, the usually reliable Moody Analytics predicts a VERY CLOSE Democratic win in 2016. http://tinyurl.com/ohxofh8
Our first priority now should be reelecting a Democrat to the White House, not pie-in-the-sky promises.
18
There you go again. Misrepresenting Bernie. By now you should know better.
Bernie has acknowledged that retaking the house is unlikely - but it is even more unlikely if the Dems nominate a corporatist-estalbishment candidate like HIllary. People simply won't show up - the stats show that too.
The political revolution that Bernie has been talking about is in voter participation: that is encouraging voters to physically call upon their congressmen, in their physical presence, to represent their interests as a way to mitigate the payola that causes legislators to vote against their constituents interests. This means going to their office in large numbers, and if necessary demonstrating in huge numbers on the mall in front of the capital.
Bernie knows from experience, beginning in Vermont, and extending to Washington, that in the absence of voter presence, politicians will take the money and vote as they are lobbied - but with heavy voter presence and participation, they'll do what their constituent want them to do.
Quit lying about what Bernie says Carly. Hillary is an establishment candidate. She took $3 million from BigBansters in personal remuneration in 2013, $750k from Goldman Sachs. You think she is going to go to the matt to create change in America? Demand side economics? Reverse the concentration of wealth and power when she relied upon it to get elected? Naive comes to mind. We need demand side econ. Bernie's it.
Hillary's not it. She's a centrist republican.
Bernie has acknowledged that retaking the house is unlikely - but it is even more unlikely if the Dems nominate a corporatist-estalbishment candidate like HIllary. People simply won't show up - the stats show that too.
The political revolution that Bernie has been talking about is in voter participation: that is encouraging voters to physically call upon their congressmen, in their physical presence, to represent their interests as a way to mitigate the payola that causes legislators to vote against their constituents interests. This means going to their office in large numbers, and if necessary demonstrating in huge numbers on the mall in front of the capital.
Bernie knows from experience, beginning in Vermont, and extending to Washington, that in the absence of voter presence, politicians will take the money and vote as they are lobbied - but with heavy voter presence and participation, they'll do what their constituent want them to do.
Quit lying about what Bernie says Carly. Hillary is an establishment candidate. She took $3 million from BigBansters in personal remuneration in 2013, $750k from Goldman Sachs. You think she is going to go to the matt to create change in America? Demand side economics? Reverse the concentration of wealth and power when she relied upon it to get elected? Naive comes to mind. We need demand side econ. Bernie's it.
Hillary's not it. She's a centrist republican.
200
Voter turn out in 2014 was just 36%!!!!!!!!!!!
That's why GOP wins house elections.
The GOP does better when there's low turn out.
Dems do better when there is high turn out.
Every working class person making less than $15 an hour is going to have high motivation to turn out in 2016 if Bernie is the nominee
Every millenial with aspirations for going to college or already carrying college debt is going to have high motivation to turn out in 2016 if Bernie is the nominee.
If the nominee is Hillary, not so much. Then she'll shift to her right as she campaigns in the general. Then she'll be swift boated by the GOP. By the time the election comes she'll be luck if she wins. Only the fact that the other side is running clowns will sustain her.
That's why GOP wins house elections.
The GOP does better when there's low turn out.
Dems do better when there is high turn out.
Every working class person making less than $15 an hour is going to have high motivation to turn out in 2016 if Bernie is the nominee
Every millenial with aspirations for going to college or already carrying college debt is going to have high motivation to turn out in 2016 if Bernie is the nominee.
If the nominee is Hillary, not so much. Then she'll shift to her right as she campaigns in the general. Then she'll be swift boated by the GOP. By the time the election comes she'll be luck if she wins. Only the fact that the other side is running clowns will sustain her.
109
The point is that Bernie will TRY to change the game. No one else will. Not the clowns in the car and not Hillary who is in hock up to her eyeballs to Wall Street. Change may be difficult. But if you don't at least try it is impossible.
69
Republicants.
23
Demolicans, I suppose? How then frozen, polarized politics, an undivided Republican Congress and a majority of Republican statehouses and governor's mansions?
Perhaps a more important question is why don't voters know the Democratic record is so much better?
Starting with job growth Obama vs. Bush, why don't voters know this?
And deficits grow under Republicans and shrink under Democrats. Why don't voters know this?
How does the Wall St. Journal allow this misinformation to be published?