Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pnwmom

(108,976 posts)
12. True. But the decline has meant that the structural deficit is now a small
Fri Jan 4, 2013, 05:13 PM
Jan 2013

fraction of the GNP.

By the way, Krugman isn't just some NYTimes columnist, nor is he just some Princeton University professor. He's a Princeton professor who won the Nobel Prize in economics. Even if his arguments seem wrong to you, on the surface, maybe you should at least give them serious consideration. If you go the NYTimes site and search for his columns on the deficit there, you could find many more columns written about this with more statistics to back up his arguments.

From the link at the OP:
"It’s hard to look at that chart and not conclude that the slump is the principal cause of the deficit. Soltas suggests, based on a more careful statistical analysis, that the structural budget deficit, including interest, is 2 percent of GDP or less. He also makes an interesting observation: the deficit has become more cyclically sensitive over time thanks to rising inequality. How so? More revenue comes from the wealthy — even though their tax rates have fallen — and their income is more volatile than that of ordinary workers.

"So, the whole deficit panic is fundamentally misplaced. And it’s especially galling if you look at what many of the same people now opining about the evils of deficits said back when we had a surplus. Remember, George W. Bush campaigned on the basis that the surplus of the late Clinton years meant that we needed to cut taxes — and Alan Greenspan provided crucial support, telling Congress that the biggest danger we faced was that we might pay off our debt too fast. Now Greenspan is helping groups like Fix the Debt.

"And as Duncan Black points out, the Bush experience tells us something important about fiscal policy: namely, that when Democrats get obsessed with deficit reduction, all they do is provide a pot of money that Republicans will squander on more tax breaks for the wealthy as soon as they get a chance. Suppose Romney had won; do you have even a bit of doubt that all the supposed deficit hawks of the GOP would suddenly have discovered that unfunded tax cuts and military spending are perfectly fine?"

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Krugman: Democrats should...»Reply #12