Paul Krugman Angrily Summarizes Months-Old Criticism of Paul Ryan’s Budget Plan

Congressman Paul Ryan made the front page of The Washington Post earlier this week. And now it appears that the Post’s piece, which looked at Ryan’s long term budget plan, has caught the attention of The New York Times’ under-stimulated econogrouch, Paul Krugman, who uses his column today to attack Ryan’s plan and its author. Krugman, ever the poetic wit, calls Ryan a “flimflam man” whose policy ideas consist of “leftovers from the 1990s” that are (and this is the really devastating part) “drenched in flimflam sauce,” which does not sound tasty at all. Too bad Krugman’s chief criticism is also pretty stale.

His primary contention is that for all Ryan’s stated concern about the deficit, the congressman’s Roadmap—his long-term plan for restructuring the entitlement system and bringing the debt and deficit under control—doesn’t actually reduce the deficit. In order to make this claim, Krugman relies on an assessment by what he labels "the non-partisan Tax Policy Center."

Before we go further, there are two things to note about his source: The first is that TPC’s outside analysis, unlike, say, the CBO’s, is not an official estimate. The second is that, yes, like all non-profit policy groups, TPC is “non-partisan.” But so are the Center for American Progress and the Heritage Foundation; it’s understood, though, that these groups lean in a particular political direction. TPC is a joint project of Brookings and the Urban Institute, both of which lean somewhat to the left. That’s not meant to criticize the group’s work in any way; TPC is a respected public policy organization. But it is a reminder that there’s more to the group than its non-partisan status.

So what’s Krugman’s big complaint? When TPC looked at Ryan’s plan, its analysis concluded that the Roadmap wouldn’t raise nearly the amount of revenue that Ryan estimated and, as a result, would actually raise the deficit.

But this was all hashed out months ago between Ryan and the TPC. As Ryan has noted, his plan’s revenue estimates were made in consultation with the Treasury Department in 2009. And they were based on CBO’s alternative fiscal scenario, which, at the time the revenue projections were made, expected somewhat higher growth than when TPC performed its estimates. That probably explains some of the difference. But, says Ryan, if TPC’s projections looked to be accurate, he’d be happy to adjust his plan in order to meet his revenue targets.

Does this sound like the work of a flimflam artist to you? Forecasting the vagaries of the economy five or 10 years in advance is incredibly difficult; most projections are bound to be off, and quality analysts doing quality work will inevitably disagree about what our economic future holds. But it seems to me that the people who are worth listening to are those who engage in thoughtful dialogue with the opposition, who accept that the future—as well as any projection that claims to predict it—is uncertain, and who agree to change plans accordingly. This is exactly what Ryan has done.

Krugman, meanwhile, is grumbling that Ryan’s plan “makes no useful contribution to the debate over America’s fiscal future” while moaning that the $787 billion deficit-funded stimulus was too small and asking for another round of deficit spending. Gotcha. Please pass the flimflam sauce?

Reason beat The Washington Post to the Paul Ryan punch with this look at the man and his plan back in our June issue.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Xeones||

    Shut the fuck up, Krug-man.

  • kilroy||

    Yo, Xeones. Where the hell have you been, bitch?

  • Naga Sadow||

    What are your views on stem cells, Xeones?

  • ||

    I'd like to piss on that umbrella. Provided that it has a huge hole in it and Krugman is looking through it slack-jawed.

  • ||

    You can just tell him it is raining. When you think about, that is what he has been doing to his readers for years.

  • ||

    Peter,

    Someone posted this link about a bunch of fairly serious economist giving Krugman the intellecutal beatings he so richly deserves in the comment section of his blog. It got so bad, he has now, contrary to NYT policy limited the number of characters in each comment so people can no longer post detailed rebuttals. It is worth reading. And warrants a Hit and Run Post I think.

    http://www.americanthinker.com....._up_1.html

  • AA||

    Reading that link made me smile. It shall get sent to others.

  • Joe M||

    Delicious.

  • ||

    Fucking brutal. And too on point to be digested by the bootlickers downthread.

  • ||

    Fucking brutal. And too on point to be digested by the bootlickers downthread.

    There are some pretty good links to studies that refute a lot of the claims made by those boot lickers...i had fun on another thread posting links to em to refute stupid crap Tony and other post.

  • Corduroy||

    Gold. Pure gold.

  • ▲ ▲||

    Bless you, John. That article was just wonderful.

  • Brian Defferding||

    Oh man, that was so beautiful it almost brought a tear to my eye. Thanks for posting that.

  • hmm||

    Krugman gets taken to task all the time. He's a political shill more than an economist. He's Keynes lite, with half the calories and, more fiz, and less filling.

    I look at him as an excellent purveyor of satire and comedy.

  • hmm||

    There are even economist that agree with some of his views that take him to task for his shitty work.

  • Eric||

    Most of us economists are wondering how many times Pelosi had to eyesocket rape him to get him down from being the center-left economist with brilliant papers on free trade, to the establishment shill he is now.

  • ||

    He's a political shill more than an economist.

    I prefer the description of "court astrologer". His job is to tell the ruling class what they want to hear, and use a pretense of mathematics based on asinine premises to do so.

    -jcr

  • Eric||

    Better than some other progressive economists.

    Brad DeLong, for example, regularly edits the comments of his antagonists to set up a nice strawman that he can beat on.

  • AA||

    "But it seems to me that the people who are worth listening are those who engage in thoughtful dialog with the opposition, who accept that the future—as well as any projection that claims to predict it—is uncertain, and who agree to change plans accordingly. This is exactly what Ryan has done."

    No need to do this when you can just keep blaming Bush.

  • ||

    Why does anyone care what Krugman says? Whether it is Foregin Affairs pointing out his contention that Iceland is doing OK by the purposeful and very misleading graphical representation of the situation, or his saying that when he said "The Fed should blow a bubble" he did not mean that the Fed should blow a bubble.
    1,300 years ago consulting shaman's who pondered chicken entrails was undertandable. It isn't now.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    He is a Nobel Prize winner man! Just like Carter and Gore, he needs to be listened to.

  • Ron L||

    You left out Obama

  • JBA||

    And Arafat.

  • ▲ ▲||

    And Friedman.

    Wait.

  • Harry||

    "No useful contribution?!" Krugman wouldn't know a useful contribution if it smacked him upside the head. Here we have a hack bufooneconologist who can do nothing but tow the socialist line. Virtually everything to come out of his pen touts government control coupled with a contemptuous mistrust of the American people, who he implies are unable to take care of themselves. If "flim-flam" is a creative and bold plan to help the economy by specifically getting the government out of the way and allowing people to move forward unencumbered by governmental fiscal insanity, I'll take the flim-flam. These bureaucratic-minded Keynesian clowns need to be discredited and defeated once and for all.

    Harry (@ToBeRIGHT)

  • The_Chef||

    Is anyone ... surprised?

    Krugman does here what he does best: Gobbling Keynesian genitalia.

    Don't get me wrong, I've met some nice Keynesians. We disagreed, but they were at least willing to engage an issue in an intellectually honest manner as opposed to dumping a truckload of Ad Hominems on me.

  • omg||

    Some of my best friends are Keynesians!

  • The_Chef||

    You could become an Austrian fundamentalist and thump them over the head with Human Action until they get it...

  • ||

    Don't get me wrong, I've met some nice Keynesians.

    I hear John Wayne Gacy was a gregarious individual, too.

    -jcr

  • Xeones||

    sage, the only problem i can see with your proposal is that Krugman would enjoy it far too much.

  • AA||

    I was thinking diarhea instead, but I guess he would probably enjoy that as well.

  • ||

    So would I.

  • The_Chef||

    2Krugmans1Cup.

    /fin

  • ||

    Who the fuck are you?

  • The_Chef||

    Nice to meet you too Epi.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Why does a hack like Krugman still have a job commenting on ecnomics?

    I have never been one to accept the concept of "market failure" but in this instance I may have to make an execption.

  • The_Chef||

    because it fits people's preconcieved notion of how things should be. It's confirmation bias at its finest. He has an avid authoritarian leftist readership, so they just give themselves a hug and say "See, an Economist agrees with me."

  • ||

    More to the point, "A winner of the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel agrees with me." Appeal to authority?

  • The_Chef||

    Yes .. to an extent, but we're all guilty of that to an extent. In fact, citing someone's work to support your point could been seen as such a fallacy in certain light.

  • Jeffersonian||

    When TPC looked at Ryan’s plan, its analysis concluded that the Roadmap wouldn’t raise nearly the amount of revenue that Ryan estimated and, as a result, would actually raise the deficit.

    Well then we'll just have to cut spending some more, yes?

  • ||

    Inconceivable!

  • BakedPenguin||

    rustedangel, I think you meant "Inconceivable!"

  • ||

    Waiting to read Krugabe's long-term plan for how to reduce the debt. Waiting...waiting...wait, did he just say "It'll happen naturally because of the uber-growth that will eventually result from the printing of so many Krugabebacks."?...No, that's the Krugabe in my head...waiting...waiting...

  • ||

    Why does a story on Krugman generate gout ads?

  • ||

    Because Depends adult diapers hasn't ponied up any cash yet!

    Perhaps when there is some more tangible evidence that K-man has crapped himself in public?

  • TallDave||

    I'm pretty sure he just did.

  • ||

    Well in the photo he's facing forward but I'll take your word for it.

  • Mike M.||

    "He wasn’t the one we’ve been waiting for."
    -Alfred E. Krugman on Barack Obama, January 20, 2010

    "If Democrats hold the House, which is still a big if but is starting to look possible, the 111th Congress — and, yes, Obama’s first two years — will go down in history as an epic success."
    -Alfred E. Krugman on Barack Obama, May 16, 2010

    When Bush was in office Alfred was decrying the Bush deficits, and now he tells us that deficits don't mean anything and that because interest rates are now low, they're going to stay that way forever and we have nothing to worry about.

    The man is a complete joke. To call him a hack is an insult to hacks.

  • Greer||

    “drenched in flimflam sauce,”

    Consider yourself cut to the BONE.

  • Tman||

    The advantage to reading Krugman is that you can accurately judge how horribly wrong a government policy is based on whether or not the Krugster agrees with it.

    He's like the bizarro mans economist.

  • Old Mexican||

    From the American Thinker link above:

    Krugman is an academic. He has never run a company. He has never created a job. The closest contact he evidently ever had to "business" was as an adviser to Enron, where (in his own words) he was paid $50,000 to help build Enron's "image."

    He took the money and ran...

  • Irresponsible Hater||

    Ooooh, I forgot, Paul Krugman.

    Gotta go back to yesterday's Useful Idiots post and add his name to the list.

  • Jose||

    "Krugman, ever the poetic wit, calls Ryan a 'flimflam man' whose policy ideas consist of 'leftovers from the 1990s'..."

    I remember the 1990s. Peace...prosperity... Where's the problem, again?

  • TallDave||

    And welfare refom.

  • Brett L||

    Balanced budgets according to Krugman.

  • TallDave||

    Nice work again Peter.

  • Tony||

    A liberal pundit's correctness can be directly correlated with the amount of ad hominem heaped on him by you guys. Anyone care to address his points, or does Suderman's Paul Ryan man-crush suffice?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    A liberal pundit's correctness can be directly correlated with the amount of ad hominem heaped on him by you guys.

    That would have made someone like Hitler the greatest mind ever.

  • ||

    amount of ad hominem heaped on him by you guys

    Suderman's Paul Ryan man-crush

    You are a fucking idiot.

  • ||

    The Captain of the Disney Economics Club has been rebutted so often that he had to stop comments on his blog.

    However if there's any particular Krugnmanism that you still actually believe let me know and I'll be happy to straighten you out.

    Or you could just read or listen to Hazlitt's Economics in one Lesson.

  • hinckley||

    Clearly, this is where the right-wing caucus gathers to beat each other off with defenses of their boneheaded representatives...so, I won't stay long.

    The piece you idiots conveniently IGNORE from Krugman's commentary is that the CBO..."(a)t Mr. Ryan’s request...produced an estimate of the budget effects of his proposed spending cuts — period. It DID NOT address the revenue losses from his tax cuts."

    Then, the Post and all you tea bagging sycophants swallowed Ryan's budgetary spooge and collectively reflected on how much you enjoyed it!

  • George V||

    "Ryan has noted, his plan’s revenue estimates were made in consultation with the Treasury Department in 2009. And they were based on CBO’s alternative fiscal scenario, which, at the time the revenue projections were made, expected somewhat higher growth than when TPC performed its estimates. That probably explains some of the difference. But, says Ryan, if TPC’s projections looked to be accurate, he’d be happy to adjust his plan in order to meet his revenue targets."

    Which part of that statement do you not understand!

  • Tony||

    The part that's supposed to indicate this is a serious proposal.

  • RTFA||

    RTFA

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "The piece you idiots conveniently IGNORE from Krugman's commentary is that the CBO..."(a)t Mr. Ryan’s request...produced an estimate of the budget effects of his proposed spending cuts — period. It DID NOT address the revenue losses from his tax cuts."

    The CBO does not do independent tax revenue estimates in the first place.

    The Joint Committe on Taxation does that.

  • Eric||

    Yes, this objection was made clear months ago and addressed months ago. Hence the article, which you clearly didn't read.

  • ||

    Conservatives are often stupid too, but they tend to actually read the post they are responding to before they prove themselves a moron.

    I mean borrow from Tony or Chad. Spice it up. Toss in a few ad homs, a few straw men and always some tu quoques.

    Then prove yourself a moron. That's how progressives do it here, and we appreciate it. It makes it look like we put some effort into it.

    But you.. you just blew your wad when you saw the bra.

    Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

  • ||

    All I see in this blog ad hominem statements against Professor Krugman.

    Nobody has come up with a statement refuting PK critique. Nobody has come up with proof that Congressman Ryan's plan is sound. There are no smoking guns, just pathetic whining by an assortment of losers and sycophants.

    You say this or that economist or blog poster give him an intellectual drubbing, but there is no there there.

    This is a useless blog. My advice for the readers of this blog is to do something useful to American society, like volunteer for the National Association of Free Clinics, and truly help people.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Just The Facts,

    Nobody has come up with a statement refuting PK critique.

    That's because his was not a critique, but a hit piece. There's nothing to refute, the man is simply ranting.

  • ||

    Follow the link up thread and read what his own commentators did to him.

  • tarran||

    Mr Facts,

    Here you go:
    A real economist's daily fisking of Krugman:
    Krugman in Wonderland Blog

    Tony will especially like how today's blog starts:

    As I have noted before, Paul Krugman told me during a Q&A in a session at the 2004 Southern Economic Association meetings (Dr. Joseph Salerno was sitting next to me and he can verify what I am writing) that the 70 percent tax rates that existed before 1981 were "insane." Given what Krugman has written in a recent blog post, my sense is that he has repudiated his 2004 statement.
  • ||

    Nobody has come up with proof that Congressman Ryan's plan is sound.

    This is what the TPC has to say about it:

    Krugman alleges fraud because CBO did not score the revenue side of the Congressman’s plan. (This is correct as the Joint Committee on Taxation is responsible for providing the official revenue score of tax legislation.) Instead, CBO assumed that total federal tax revenues will be equal to “those under CBO’s alternative fiscal scenario … until they reach 19 percent of gross domestic product in 2030, and to remain at that share of GDP thereafter.” Contrary to Krugman’s claims, this assumption is not unjustified. Ryan has explicitly stated that he is willing to work with the Treasury department to adjust the rates on his tax reform plan to “maintain approximately our historic levels of revenue as a share of GDP.” Since 1980 the federal tax revenue has been about 18 percent of GDP.

    So yeah here is your proof you asked for written by the very same guys Krugman says used the right numbers.

    http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter......98007.html

  • ||

    "Since 1980 the federal tax revenue has been about 18 percent of GDP."

    The most important part of that fact is that it is NOT an average...revenue has been "about 18%" NO MATTER WHAT THE TAX RATES WERE !!!!

  • ||

    Who's asking for your advice?

  • ||

    Krugman, ever the poetic wit, calls Ryan a “flimflam man” whose policy ideas consist of “leftovers from the 1990s”

    Because, ya know, the 90's economy sucked so hard.

  • Xeones||

    Yo, Xeones. Where the hell have you been, you awesome motherfucker?

    kilroy, that is a tale as long, dark, and twisted as the hair on one of Epi's moles, yet simultaneously even less interesting than a Chad comment on a post about high-speed rail.

  • ||

    That's a whole lot of fancy words to say "jail."

  • MWG||

    Zing!

  • ||

    It was not just a hit piece. He explains the dishonesty in Ryan's numbers which the WaPo whores missed. He further elaborates in his blog. Ryan got his hand caught in the cookie jar by gaming the CBO with numbers that would come out with the results he wanted. Again, if we had an honest press corps, they would have discovered this, not Krugman.

    Now if you have evidence that Ryan's proposal is sound, let us hear it.

    Put up or shut up. And while we're at it, let me see your papers.

  • ||

    He further elaborates in his blog

    is that the same blog where he cut off comments to only 3 inches of text because the commenters were kicking his ass?

  • ||

    You did not answer the poster's question

  • ||

    Read farther down.

  • George V||

    "gaming the CBO with numbers that would come out with the results he wanted"

    Ryan said if the assumptions changed, he would adjust the plan. Why is that so hard for you collectivists to understand that!

  • Mike M.||

    The other thing that these collectivists either don't understand or deliberately ignore is that for more than sixty years now, federal tax receipts have remained remarkably consistent relative to GDP regardless of the various tax rates.

    The prime factor determining how much money the government will take in going forward will be the same thing that it has always been: GDP and the growth of the general economy.

  • Tony||

    This is a dishonest talking point I'm sick of seeing regurgitated. Sure they're stable if you hold the graph about 10 feet from your face, don't squint, and ignore every other measure out there. Besides, if you're right then I expect you won't be screaming about the doom the next modest tax increase will bring to the country?

  • Mike M.||

    This is a dishonest talking point I'm sick of seeing regurgitated.

    It's not a "talking point" you fucking jackass, it's a fact.

    Since the end of World War II, total federal tax receipts have been remarkably consistent, remaining in the area of 18-20% of GDP regardless of the various tax rates, which have varied signifcantly in that time frame. It does go lower than that during steep economic downturns, like the little depression that we're stuck in right now.

    Here's the freaking chart right here that shows it. If you can't deal with simple facts, that's your problem.

  • ||

    Looking at the graph one should note that revenue was highest when we had a balanced budget.

    And Krugmans plan to increase revenue it is to increase deficit spending.

  • ||

    It's not a "talking point" you fucking jackass, it's a fact.

    "Talking point" is the new leftie term for any inconvenient fact that they want to ignore.

    -jcr

  • ||

    This is a dishonest talking point I'm sick of seeing regurgitated.

    It would seem that the TPC disagrees agrees with you:

    Ryan has explicitly stated that he is willing to work with the Treasury department to adjust the rates on his tax reform plan to “maintain approximately our historic levels of revenue as a share of GDP.” Since 1980 the federal tax revenue has been about 18 percent of GDP.

    http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter......98007.html

    It should also be noted that the TPC disagrees with Krugman:

    Given that columnist Paul Krugman relied on Tax Policy Center estimates to level claims that Congressman Paul Ryan is a “flimflam man” and that Ryan’s plan to address our fiscal problems is a “fraud,” I think a defense of the Congressman is in order.

  • ||

    You obviously fancy our Congressman - how can u even give him the time of day when he is trying to destroy our country ???? BLAH < BLAH , there is less to him that the looks !

  • ||

    Not hard to understand, but he has not done that. The problem is also not one of assumptions but of what he sent to be scored - the impact of spending cuts on deficits BUT not of tax cuts on revenues. Now if a collectivist like me can understand that I'm sure a reptard like you can too.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Arizona Man,

    It was not just a hit piece. He explains the dishonesty in Ryan's numbers which the WaPo whores missed.

    A) Ryan's plan is based on estimates. He's not a soothsayer.
    B) Krugman is not precisely the proper man to call out the "dishonesty" of someone.

    Now if you have evidence that Ryan's proposal is sound, let us hear it.

    You should learn how to argue - it is not up to anybody here to prove that. The point of the article above is that Krugman not only does not disprove the soundness of the plan, he merely rants against it.

  • ||

    Krugman not only does not disprove the soundness of the plan, he merely rants against it.

    Actually this is proof that it is sound. Krugman's only argument is that he used CBO numbers rather then use the numbers of some left leaning think tank.

    If that is all the great Nobel winning economist Krugman can find it must be a pretty solid piece of work.

  • ||

    You have not answered the poster's question. The issue is not only with Ryan's assumptions, but what he sent to be scored - the impact of spending cuts on the deficit and NOT the impact of tax cuts on revenues.

  • Sam Grove||

    The post wasn't about Ryan's plan.

    Reading comprehension not your forté?

  • ||

    You mean my health insurance papers? No need to ask, the IRS has my checking account under surveillance.

  • ||

    The fucking reek of Kool-Aid is making me dizzy.

  • Krugman Fanboi||

    Somebody please kill me.

  • ||

    RE: Krugman's blog restrictions: do you mean Sean of florida? He never kicked PK's ass, he was just a repetitive kool-aid drink from the Marx-Hoover-Hayek axis. I am sure by your standards, the Pittsburgh Pirates are dominating the National League this year.

    Krugman generally responded to posters only when there were several of them had a similar question or understanding of something that Krugman felt he needed to clarify.
    As for the people who screamed "I am waiting you to answer Kinseley" which Krugman had, but for some people, English is not their strong suite.

  • tarran||

    The Black Knight Always Prevails!

    Come back you pansies! I'll bite your kneecaps off!

  • Krugman Fanboi||

    Care for a circle jerk, Murphy? In the middle is a giant sized replica of Paul's stash. I can't wait either!

  • Invisible Finger||

    Krugman looks like and reminds me of Christopher Guest's character in Waiting For Guffman.

    ASSFACE! You're... BASTARD PEOPLE!!

  • ||

    "Here's the Communist Manifesto lunchbox. Kids don't like eating at school, but if they have a Communist Manifesto lunchbox they're a lot happier."

  • ||

    Because he makes you face the harsh reality that you the world is complicated?

  • ||

    English is not their strong suite.

    Indeed.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Snicker

  • Another Phil||

    Joe'z memorial law.

  • Ron L||

    BTW:
    "White House economic adviser Romer steps down"
    From Bloomberg

  • ||

    So where are the "adjustments" Ryan said he would make to the Road Map in light of the new projections?

    We're waa-iiiting!

  • The_Chef||

    You sound kinda like those freepers wanting to see BO's birth certificate.

  • ||

    Leave it to "The Chef" to finally deliver some authentic weak-sauce.

  • Krugman Fanboi||

    Wanna join the jerk off with me and Michael Murphy? Wait a second . . . Murphy and you are fucking Micks! I share opinions with fucking ignorant Micks! Please, someone kill me.

  • ||

    Oh, I thought it was "flim flam sauce"? It burrrrrns! *snort*

  • ||

    the 70 percent tax rates that existed before 1981 were "insane." Given what Krugman has written in a recent blog post, my sense is that he has repudiated his 2004 statement.

    Nonsense; he meant "insanely LOW".

  • ChrisO||

    Did this article/thread get linked somewhere? The statists seem to have shown up en masse.

    As for Krugman, the man advised Enron. 'Nuff said.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    He also believes in the validity of Keynesean economic theory.

    Enough said on that as well.

  • ||

    The original flimflam man turns out to be Barack Obama, whose stimulus package was supposed to keep unemployment from going above 8 percent--but didn't.

  • ||

    Krugman is a total a-hole. His column and his blog feature edited feedback from acolytes; "aweome dr. k!" and "way to go, paul" and other feckless critiques. This guy is a little, smarmy, silver spoon punk, who only wants to have his ass kissed. I don't care how much math he knows, on a normal human basis he's just an a-hole, and a flagrant one at that.

  • ||

    I don't care how much math he knows,

    He doesn't know math, he knows how to pretend to do math. Any mathematician knows that you have to start from sound premises.

    -jcr

  • ||

    Krugman just gutted the premise of this apologia for Ryan, and pre-emptively smacked down Ryan's anticipated defense along the same lines.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c.....edictions/

  • Shorter Danny||

    The LORD has spoken!

  • ||

    Lol did you actually read the post?

    One wonders if he posts drunk, or has he become naturally incoherent?

  • ChrisO||

    Ryan's ideas may or may not work, and are probably too difficult to be enacted in any event--not even that many of his fellow Republicans are willing to take on entitlement spending.

    However, AFAIK, Krugman's lone idea appears to be that we can cure what ails the economy through *more* government spending. Which is stupidity in its purest form. Government, both through taxation and regulatory overkill, is slowly squeezing the life out of the American economy. The future will be written elsewhere if we don't do something about this soon. And, based on our rapidly increasing amount of public debt and deteriorating financial position, by soon I mean "soon."

  • CraftD||

    The Tax Policy Center has come to the defense of Rep. Ryan. http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter......98007.html

    And about an hour later the NYT shut down comments on Krugman's column.

  • ||

    So does the part of the post about TPC leaning left like Heritage Foundation leaning right still count?

  • Eric||

    Yes, it just means that they aren't dishonest schmucks like you, Danny.

  • ||

    So does the part of the post about TPC leaning left like Heritage Foundation leaning right still count?

    Danny i hate to break this to you but you just implied that honesty is mutually exclusive with being left leaning.

    Belive it or not it is possible for TBC to be honest and left leaning.
    Simply because Krugman is a liar and left leaning does not mean everyone who is left leaning is a liar.

    In your defense though there is a strong correlation between being left leaning and a liar. So i can see how you assumed that it is always the case.

  • ||

    And again, when do we see these promised, much-touted "adjustments" that the oh-so-reasonable-Ryan is oh-so-ready to make?

    (And "The Chef" can keep his cornhole yap shut until we see the equivalent of this: http://tinyurl.com/6n9zka )

  • ||

    And again, when do we see these promised, much-touted "adjustments" that the oh-so-reasonable-Ryan is oh-so-ready to make?

    He used the CBO numbers for estimates. The TPC used their own numbers and found using their own numbers that there would be a shortfall. What Ryan is saying is if their is a short fall the plan can adjust taxes to insure that at least 18% GDP would be pulled in to get that revenue short fall.

    One should also note that deficit spending has been shown to hurt revenues.

    http://www.economics.harvard.e.....e_Debt.pdf

    In other words in the real world revenues should jump above 18% as debt is payed down. The CBO and the TPC numbers both do not take this into effect.

  • ||

    Why can't Paul sue for defamation? Seems like more of a basis for a lawsuit then Wolk being criticized.

  • ||

    His mind will still be in the Soros clouds and his talk will still be all make believe
    Oh lord, the man’s a fraud, he’s a flim flam man

    He’ll wrap himself up in a big beautiful box making out like he’ll give out more gifts than Santa Claus
    Oh lord, the man’s a fraud, he’s a flim flam man

    Oh yeah, the beautiful gent, you know he’ll leave you with hardly any medical care and nary a cent
    But maybe he can heal the sick and pay your bills with his charm

    His Marxist plans may be back up his sleeve but his talk will still be all make believe
    Oh lord, the man’s a fraud, he’s a flim flam man

  • ||

    That is the best picture choice.

  • ||

    Hah. This does not mention that the CBO report specifically did not include his tax cuts as part of the plan.

  • ||

    Krugman is like that guy who shows up to your roadplan unveiling, and keeps accosting people and shouting, "I wanna dip my baaaaaaalls in it [the roadplan; your flimflam squeeze bottle; whatever]" over and over until he is arrested, and tazed repeatedly. He is kinda like that

  • ||

    Krugman us an ultra-Left political hack who dangles his economist credentials to bolster his credibility. EVERY SINGLE WORD that comes out of his mouth is designed to either hasten the socialist revolution, or to discredit those who would slow the revolution. He has no core beliefs, and cares nothing of individual issues...it's all about "fundamentally changing" america...as somebody once said.

  • ||

    your article is hollow and bitter. Krugman, much to your dismay had it right. I'm a moderate who's really getting tired of these right wing outlets polluting the internet.

  • ||

    One side says we should kill a 10,000 poeple.

    The other side says we should not kill anyone.

    john is a moderate and says we should only kill 5000 people.

    Anyway the reality is polls showed that a majority of Americans were against TARP the bail outs and a majority think we should spend less with less government services. By being a "moderate" you are splitting the difference then claiming the majority of poeple who disagree with you are right wingers.

    Perhaps you would not be so tired of right wingers if you simply classified them correctly as the majority.

    I am not implying majorities are always right. They can and are wrong all the time. But your argument which boils down to "i am middle of the road and therefor i am right" really is not an argument one way or the other. And at the very least when most poeple disagree with you it might be a good time to examine their arguments on their merits rather then dismissing them because you think they may lean more right then you do.

  • Fuzzface||

    There seem to be a lot of worked up people on this blog, a lot of whom apparently did not bother to read Krugman's column.

    To start with, here's quote that they might note: "And The Post also tells us that his plan would, indeed, sharply reduce the flow of red ink: 'The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan would cut the budget deficit in half by 2020.'

    But the budget office has done no such thing. At Mr. Ryan’s request, it produced an estimate of the budget effects of his proposed spending cuts — period. It didn’t address the revenue losses from his tax cuts."

    So do you get it? He's quoting the WashPost, which mischaracterized the CBO's analysis of Ryan's plan.

    And BTW, anybody notice that Ryan's plan would increase taxes on the middle class, reduce them on the wealthy, cut Social Security and Medicare, and raise the SS elegibilty age?

  • ||

    And that is what is going to have to be done in order to save the Republic. The day of the free lunch is over, in case you libtards haven't noticed.

  • ||

    So don't cut spending and borrow more?

    So in spite of PIIGS you think there's a free lunch? You still think saddling innocent (in the sense they didn't vote for the debt you want to keep loading on them) children with more debt?

  • ||

    As the extreme left wing solution of massive spending and debt fail miserably the arrogant liberal Elites of the world scrabble with their excuses. First there just wasn't enough corrupt spending and debt, and second and attack on any alternate policies. The Flim Flamer are the left wing Elites who have driven the nation into a ditch!

  • ||

    Krugman is a washed up political HACK If you read his past writings you see he has been consistently wrong His work should be taken lightly if at all

  • ||

    Ahha! So, someone has, yet again, caught Herr Krugman hitting the flimflam sauce! Actually, I'm terribly unsurprised. For someone with such a reputation, Mr. Krugman seems to have very little backing that reputation up. So often, his remarks seem to miss the point, and ignore his own positions. His "concerns" about Mr. Ryan's proposal relative to revenue and deficits, vis-a-vis his own recommendations for more unfunded spending, are a case in point. Somehow, I think Mr. Krugman has become overly impressed with his reputation and his prizes, and stopped thinking very deeply some time ago.

  • ||

    OK, so Krugman's reputation is blemished - how does your comment refute his claim that Paul Ryan is using some odd math?

    1) 0% nominal growth rate driving deficit reduction
    2) NO CBO estimate of the impact on revenues of tax cuts (that are mainly directed at the wealthy).

  • ||

    Considering we've pretty much put all preponderance taxes on the wealthy any tax cuts are cut's 'for the wealthy'.

    In any case taxes are the symptom. Spending is taxes, and he addresses spending. Every dollar spent will be paid in taxes. Monetization is just a tax on the poorest whose capital is all in currency.

    Spending is shit, and taxes are cleaning out the septic tank. You can delay it but it doesn't make the job easier, and if you wait too long your sewerage system will overflow and there will be shit in your house.

    The answer isn't how to manage the shit, the answer is to cut the shit out.

  • ||

    Krugman's idea that the failed 800 billion wasn't enough and we need to go even further in debt sounds like a pretty 'greecey' sauce to me. Can you hold the riots too, please? Thanks.

  • ||

    Krugman is an idiot.

  • ||

    Apparently so are you.

  • ||

    Krugman has zero crediability and intentionally tries to inflame the right while playing to his far, far, far left audience. This makes him a clown. He contributes nothing to the argument and makes the left and New York Times look foolish

  • ||

    You bonehead! Most of your article is a personal attack on the TPC and Paul Krugman, and little analysis of the actual disagreement.

    Ryan assumes 0% nominal growth, which is the primary driver of the deficit reduction in the CBO estimate, not his slashing of spending.

    No one doubts that Ryan used the CBOs alternative long-term fiscal outlook to generate revenues. The issue is that he assumes that his proposed tax cuts will have a 0% impact on tax revenues. Thus, you can cut taxes and reduce deficits simultaneously.

    I've been posting about Ryan's flimflam since his misleading assertions during the health care debate. Get out from under your partisan rock and smell reality!

  • ||

    He is talking proof that the Nobel Prize has become worthless.

  • Cata||

    "Too bad Krugman’s chief criticism is also pretty stale."

    this is racist.

  • ||

    Hey Krugman...

    That Hopey Changey thing?

    How's it going?

  • wsblack||

    These are some of the best comments ever...

  • mark l.||

    krugman is out with another piece of s***,

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/opinion/09krugman.html

    It reads like a suicide note.

  • ||

    Technocrats, like cockroaches don't commit suicide. They just ruin countries then move on.

  • ||

    PAUL KRUGMAN is SPOT ON !!! if you ignore the messanger, and concentrate on the message, he is SPOT ON ! - well done Krugman !!

  • PB||

    This doesn't address the actual issues Krugman raises. Ryan's plan: 1) involves tax cuts for the wealthy and tax increases for those below; 2) assumes 0% growth in non-military discretionary spending 3) Ryan didn't want the CBO doing a 10 year analysis, as he has some grand 60 year vision (note: even this hack article states how uncertain even 10 year projections can be; 765) Ryan's plan doesn't actually address the deficit

  • Sarah Pee||

    "The Flim Flamer are the left wing Elites who have driven the nation into a ditch!"

    I never knew Bush was a left-wing elite ........ Yale, Harvard, granddad was a Conn. Senator -- it's all making sense now.

  • mark l.||

    I'm still trying to figure out how the stimulus was/is going...

    I haven't seen krugman's appraisals, other than it wasn't big enough...

    which rather begs the question:
    why don't we see imporvements from the govt 'investments' already made, sufficient to merit further investment?

    krugman requisitioning more seems to make me believe that he doubts the performance of the stimulus, severely.

    The most difficult question, that supporters of the stimulus should address in the effects of the stimulus on gdp growth...

    parameters?
    if the stimulus was directly responsible for substantial growth, then it means the economy was weak, by itself.

    we have reached the point in the stimulus where, whatever the effects, their return will diminish.

    so how are we doing, quarter to quarter?

    http://www.tradingeconomics.co.....Symbol=USD

    4q/09: 5%
    1q/10: 3.7%
    2q/10: 2.4%

    If a stimulus fan wants to credit 3% of the growth to the stimulus, then it leaves the economy at a 2% pace.

    basically, either the stimulus is wonderful, but hiding a dreadful economy, which hasn't really been saved, or the stimulus is horrible, and the country is carrying the weight.

    I understand krugman's frustration-
    historically, when you come out of a deep recession, you see tremendous growth out the gates. This inevitable outcome was supposed to be used to buy the credibility for the stimulus, whether responsible or not.

    Where is the growth? Our trajectory on the last three quarters is devastating.

    the fed is getting ready to revise down, no doubt on the trend. Hence, krugman's latest whimpers.

  • ||

    Paul "Crater" Krugman, esteemed economic advisor to El Presidente Barack Abyss Obama.

  • ||

    The fact that you didn't address more than one-tenth of the content of Krugman's article makes your bias pretty clear. Readers who aren't afraid to think are well advised to look at Krugman's actual column.

  • ||

    I read all of PK's crap. It does help me understand.. it helps me understand how really confused people think.

    Ultimately he says the same thing every time. Spend more. The data showing it doesn't work is somehow wrong. When it can't be overlooked anymore it's because we didn't spend enough.

    Ultimately Disney economics ignores one side of the ledger.

    Somehow by taking money from the still functioning portions of the economy, or borrowing in their name, and then giving it to the most inefficient sector of the economy, the government, or known to be failed enterprise, bailouts, that jobs are created.

    Just the opposite is true.

    We proved it in the 30's. Europe has proved it for decades. Japan proved it. We're proving it now.

    Krugman has a nonfalsifiable premise. Spend more, when it doesn't work it's because we didn't spend enough.

    We're experiencing what will hopefully be the final deathknell of Keynesianism. Unfortunately if we don't wake up soon it will also be the death knell of the US economy.

    We're up against our credit limit.

    If we don't stop spending hyperinflation is going to come if we don't tax, or depression will come if we do tax.

    Or we can cut spending.

    If we do not stop spending the first two options are inevitable.

  • ||

    First - we faced worse when President Obama took office, we were facing deep depression whether you all wish to acknowledge or not ! he told us it would be difficult, he told us it will take a while , he saved us + the rest of the world from a HUGE depression and if you do not wish to give him credit for his efforts that is your problem but please do not preach the wrong attitude to the chour..... so far we are seeing progress and no, it has nothing to do with the Republicans, trust me !! how can it be when all they have done is 'obstruct' all the way ?? and every step they take is towards a radical agenda that has nothing to do with helping our country and everything to do with becoming more Authoritarian !!! We need to invest on our own infrastructure ,we need to create new avenues to win our future, to fight for what is our countries future !!! President Obama cannot do this alone, he needs us all to explain it to those around us that do not get it, like YOU and for us to start acting as a UNITED America, he will prevail, he is the only one that really cares !! We shall overcome this radical opposition because in the end Americans are sensible ! We will OVERCOME all of these obstacles, we need a steady recovery not a sudden change of gears at the hands of a Party that hates government (unless is for their own personal gain that is) why should we trust them with our Country when they hate the job government does !! this fact alone, makes me wonder if they should ever exist in the first place !

  • ||

    I agree 1000% with this comment ! pathetic way to address such an important issue !

  • mark||

    "The fact that you didn't address more than one-tenth of the content of Krugman's article makes your bias pretty clear."

    actually, when I wipe my ass, only about 5% of the fecal matter gets stuck to the tissue, and I don't have to touch the other 95% in the bowl.

  • ||

    "Does this sound like the work of a flimflam artist to you?"

    It sure as hell does.

  • ||

    Your article clearly disapproves of one Paul and congrats the other Paul (yes, he is fit and his new hair piece looks amazing) but willing to change a disastrous plan to start with is not BRAVE at all , it is just "political gameship" of the worse nature !!!! Paul Ryan is political toast - he has just committed political suicide in my eyes !!! where is the integrity - Our President took the first brave step towards reducing the debt with his Health Care Reform Law and all the GOP did , including PR , was attack it an talk about pulling the plug on grannie which was lies, now Paul Ryan is doing something worse .....somehow is alright because he is Republican who does not like government but wishes to run it ??? it is like a person who hates cooking wanting to be a Chef !!! ???? what is with you ?? I think PK has it right and many more should come out and explain to the American people about the games P Ryan is playing here !!! - And as the President say " let us deal with last year's budget' - I am very grateful that PR has finally come out with something, disastrous as it is, we now know what they are up to and how badly they want it that they are willing to ruin his , their reputation on it !! shame on them !

  • ||

    Never mind all of these !!! your article is so bias it makes me ill - The most important thing we should be debating right now, the only question we should be asking is why are we not dealing with last year's budget ???? no country can be run with these charades, GOP shifting the conversationt to 2012 is cowardly , let us focus on the most important thing , the NOW, one thing at the time = President and Democrats have met the GOP half way but it is NEVER enough for them !!! which proves that they have a different AGENDA !

  • ||

    ditto about week extensions - this is only suitable for the GOP to gain momentum and public attention !!! I say let us shut the Republican HOUSE down !

  • دردشة||

    thanks

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement