Monday, October 25, 2010

This Guy Won A Nobel Prize?

Paul Krugman writes a piece where he claims that the reason the economy is in dire straits is because Obama and Congressional Democrats weren't "progressive" (read Leftist) enough.

Krugman also points out that historically, financial crisis lead to long periods of high unemployment even if the government steps in quickly. Perhaps Krugman's rose-colored glasses preclude him from seeing that government intervention might be directly contributing to high unemployment.

Krugman had this to say about the Federal stimulus programs,
" America needed a much stronger program than what it actually got— a modest rise in federal spending that was barely enough to offset cutbacks at the state and local level."

Modest?! The highest Federal budget deficits in U.S. history constitute nothing more than a "modest rise in federal spending." Not only was it "modest," but the problem was that we didn't spend enough! Wow, Paul must have a killer stash of Purple Haze.

He then goes on to make the standard "but it would've been worse" talking point,

"Yes, things are better than they would have been without the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: the unemployment rate would probably be close to 12 percent right now if the administration hadn’t passed its plan"

Krugman makes a declarative statement that is unproven and has no factual basis. Saying that things would have been worse if X action had not been taken is impossible to prove. Remember that the Obama administration originally sold the stimulus as a way to keep unemployment under 8%. By the administrations own measure the stimulus was a failure. Oops!

Keep on puffing the magic dragon Paul. You and your liberal buddies are going to get crushed next week.

1 comment:

Bubblehead Les. said...

How come all these Marxists who are trying to destroy Capitalism still have a job while honest workers are struggling to feed their families?