Krug-a-Chug-Chug

May 09 2011

Sigh… Krugs is at it again. Chuggin’ that Bush-Evil Train around and around… It’s yet more proof of why they call economics the miserable science, or something to that effect.  In liberal-land Bush is responsible for all evils in the world, from recession to warm salad forks.

Yawn…

I submitted the comment below to his column’s (The Unwisdom of Elites) assertion that $2T of the $14T on America’s balance sheet is due to the Bush tax cuts. Kryst… Does he not realize people have Google ferkryssakes!

I’d LOVE to know where you got your $2T Bush tax cut number, big guy, because TWO of your favorite sources for data say YOU ARE WRONG, The Tax Policy Foundation an the CBO:

TPF QUOTE -> MYTH 4. The Bush tax cuts are the main cause of the budget deficit. — …They are NOT the main cause of the sizable deficit that exists today. In 2007, well after the tax cuts took effect, the budget deficit stood at 1.2 percent of GDP. By 2009, it had increased to 9.9 percent of the economy. The Bush tax cuts DIDN’T CHANGE between 2007 and 2009, (‘the last three years’) SO CLEARLY SOMETHING ELSE IS TO BLAME.

TPF SOURCE -> August 3, 2010 50 The Tax Policy Center Five Myths about the Bush Tax Cut ~ http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=1001423

CBO QUOTE -> There is NO WAY to precisely identify the actual effects of those tax changes from budget data. Measuring the actual impact of the legislation would require gauging what revenues an economic performance WOULD HAVE BEEN in the absence of the legislation then comparing those outcomes to those that occurred with the legislation. SUCH COMPARISONS ARE IMPOSSIBLE to do with any precision

CBO SOURCE -> The above excerpt was taken from a May 11, 2010 letter from Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director of the C.B.O. to Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and you can find it here -> http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/114xx/doc11492/HincheyLtr.pdf

http://www.anniefields.com/blog

Tags: , , , , ,

7 responses so far

  • http://solebeast.easy-blog.tk/ Wilfredo

    Nice weblog, I actually will enjoy messages by you.

  • It’s

    “In liberal-land, Bush is responsible for all evils in the world . . . .” That’s called a straw man. I doubt you can find a single liberal, let alone several, who actually blame Bush for the evils in the world. I think he was a crappy President, but I certainly don’t blame him for anything other than the things for which I feel he deserves blame. It’s easy to bash a group of people if you paint a picture of them that is entirely divorced from reality.

    So again, have you considered trying to use your blog to engage in meaningful discussion, rather than ripping into people you disagree with and portraying them as idiots? I mean that as a serious question.

    • http://www.anniefields.com Annie

      “‘In liberal-land Bush is responsible for all evils in the world…’ That’s called a straw man’”

      Uh… NO. That’s called RHETORIC. Ding. Try again. Thank you for playing.

  • http://mrshambles.com Mike McCarthy

    what he means by a straw man is that you are picking sources and attributing them to Krugman. You can only attack Krugman’s position if you use what Krugman says.

    An example would be if I attacked you for Lynn Cheney’s endorsement of torture without you having agrees with Ms. Cheney’s position on this.

    Here, I don’t think Professor Krugman has used the sources you cited in discussing the federal debt. However, I’ve been wrong before so cite where Krugman used the CBO and TPF in writing about the debt.

    If you look at the graph here, you’ll see that most of the debt has been accumulated under Reagan and the 2 Bushes.

    • http://www.anniefields.com Annie

      “…picking sources and attributing them to Krugman…”

      1. These aren’t just “sources.” These are PRIMARY sources.
      2. These are PRIMARY SOURCES which Mr. Krugman USES REGULARLY.
      3. I can “attack” what Krugman “says” using PRIMARY SOURCES.
      4. I can “attack” what Krugman “says” using PRIMARY SOURCES MR. KRUGMAN USES REGULARLY.
      5. The debt accumulation was the result of the absence of SPENDING cuts concurrent with the tax cuts. Tax cuts bring in more revenue THEN IT’S SPENT. It’s frickin’ HEROIN to these people.

      THANK YOU for your thoughtful reply. I’m most appreciative of anyone who forces me to delineate down the logic chain, and your comment did. It’s good stretching. THANK YOU!

  • Have you

    Taking a deep breath and blogging about something positive, rather than bashing straw men, demonizing Obama and painting liberals with a broad, monotone brush?

    Just curious. You seem awfully angry.

    • http://www.anniefields.com Annie

      What straw men? I am happy to publish any comments with even a thread of sincerity, so let’s hear it. What straw men? Please be specific.