Why does Krugman only worry about the deficit when it's caused by taxes?

[Hauldren Collider]

Didn't Krugman say that we needed to spend more and more and more and run up debt more and more and more?

Why's he suddenly opposed to tax cuts? The multiplier on cuts has got to be a lot more than spending at this point.

[giblets]

It seems like some of the people who advocate Keynesian policies are trying to advocate redistribution of wealth without getting into the same tired arguments over whether rich people are entitled to their toys.

[Asher]

Who is Krugman and why do we care?

I'm going to assume he's a democrat because you don't like him.

[DaShi]

He's definitely a liberal. But I've never seen HC make a good case against him.

[Asher]

Isn't the fact that he's a liberal enough?

[DaShi]

One thing I will say is that the Bush tax cut extension is the worst possible solution regardless of which side is right.

The republicans claim that keeping the tax cuts will give businesses more funds to hire more people. The only reason that they haven't been with the current tax cuts is because they were afraid that the cuts would expire in 2011. Now, with the two year extension, they can still not hire people, arguing that they need to wait until 2013 to see if the tax cuts will expire or not.

The democrats simply say that the tax have done little and will continue to do for the job market, and are additionally harmful in a high deficit, recession economy.

For either side, this extension is just a continuation of the status quo, which has not improved the job market or reduced the deficit.

[DaShi]

Isn't the fact that he's a liberal enough?

For HC, yes. For the rest of the thinking world, no.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why do you worry about what Krugman says?

[Riesstiu IV]

Who is Krugman and why do we care?

I'm going to assume he's a democrat because you don't like him.

Let's be fair here, you could also assume he's a brown person or Julian Assange's half brother. HC's has a diversity of dislikes.

[Jon Miller]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/12/tax_cut_deal?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/taxcuts

According to people at the economist and the CBO, the tax cuts to the rich is a much much lower multiplier than other stimulus.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

Anybody who claims to be able to make definitive statements about the relative size of fiscal multipliers on various budgetary proposals is either ignorant or intellectually dishonest about the empirical justification behind his model.

And yes, I'm including Doug elmendorf

[Hauldren Collider]

Let's be fair here, you could also assume he's a brown person or Julian Assange's half brother. HC's has a diversity of dislikes.

So let me get this straight--you think I'm racist and believe in guilt by association?

[Hauldren Collider]

It seems like some of the people who advocate Keynesian policies are trying to advocate redistribution of wealth without getting into the same tired arguments over whether rich people are entitled to their toys.

So the government not taking your money is an entitlement. I guess it's just vocab/semantics. But I see this whole "rich people don't need their money" thing as class warfare.

[Hauldren Collider]

Why do you worry about what Krugman says?

I used to think what he said was smart and logical, even though I disagreed with it. Lately (over the last few months) he just seems like a noisy whiner.

[KrazyHorse]

Snooze.

Desert arguments are ****ing boring