The Audacity Of Dopes

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 09:45:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In answer to Ezra Klein's (and the media in general's) strange fawning over GOP representative Paul Ryan, Paul Krugman takes him apart:

[Ryan]’s often described with phrases like “intellectually audacious.” But it’s the audacity of dopes. Mr. Ryan isn’t offering fresh food for thought; he’s serving up leftovers from the 1990s, drenched in flimflam sauce.

[. . .] The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center['s analysis] indicate that the Ryan plan would reduce revenue by almost $4 trillion over the next decade. If you add these revenue losses to the numbers The Post cites, you get a much larger deficit in 2020, roughly $1.3 trillion. [. . . T] Roadmap wouldn’t reduce the deficit. All it would do is cut benefits for the middle class while slashing taxes on the rich.

[. . .] The Tax Policy Center finds that the Ryan plan would cut taxes on the richest 1 percent of the population in half, giving them 117 percent of the plan’s total tax cuts. That’s not a misprint. Even as it slashed taxes at the top, the plan would raise taxes for 95 percent of the population.

[. . .] After 2020, the main alleged saving would come from sharp cuts in Medicare, achieved by dismantling Medicare as we know it, and instead giving seniors vouchers and telling them to buy their own insurance. Does this sound familiar? It should. It’s the same plan Newt Gingrich tried to sell in 1995.

(Emphasis supplied.) The new Newt Gingrich is the new "thinker" for the GOP.

Speaking for me only

< Aspen: Sheriff's Candidates All Admit Prior Drug Use | Christina Romer Leaving Obama Administration >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Audacity Of Dopes | 45 comments (45 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I'm eager to debate him (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Ben Masel on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 08:25:15 AM EST

when we face off in the 2012 Senate race.

Where do I send my dollar donation? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:14:45 AM EST

: Cash preferred. (none / 0) (#38)
by Ben Masel on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 11:28:53 AM EST

Masel for Senate
1214 E. Mifflin St.
Madison, WI 53703

I'm so tickled (none / 0) (#10)
by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 09:50:15 AM EST

I can't wait either :)


Do have fun with Ryan's unfortunate use (none / 0) (#31)
by Cream City on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:42:09 AM EST

of "Roadmap," considering his part in the Troha over-the-road trucking scandal -- among several scandals involving the boy wonder. But every time, the local media crush on him allows him to escape, huh?

So of course, we again can expect no, nada, zilch coverage of the debate by the major media in the state, Ben. If some smaller paper does give it print, please post links here.


Cream, did anything ever come (none / 0) (#33)
by KeysDan on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:58:59 AM EST

of the bundled campaign dollars from the Troha family or other questions about casino applications?


: Yes, a couple of convictions (none / 0) (#34)
by Cream City on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 11:11:03 AM EST

as I recall, and Ryan gave away to the tribe, I think, some donations from the truckers to him -- but not much, considering the haul that he was thought to have made from the haulers.
As an aside, it has been simply astonishing to me to have watched for years now as he has become the boy wonder at the national GOP level. That hair must have Teflon in it.

Btw, I had to send the spouse (none / 0) (#35)
by Cream City on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 11:13:25 AM EST

to the web to find the Krugman column today to see Ryan called "the flim-flam man" and "a charlatan," such fun -- as I knew even before opening the major newspaper in Wisconsin that it would not be there today, and I'm betting that it will not be there tomorrow. . . . Those editors do just love them their Paul Ryan.


: Confession; When I saw the title I thought it was (none / 0) (#39)
by jawbone on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 11:34:18 AM EST

going to be about...Obama.

If you believe in fantasy economics (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Slado on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 08:44:46 AM EST

Then you take anything Krugman says as truth.

Krugman believes in the fantasy that government can spend money better then the private sector. This is the heart of Krugman, keynes, Obama, etc... economics.

It's a fantasy. At best one could argue that government can sometimes for the betterment of society distribute money faster then the private sector for the greater good but the multiplier effect is at best slightly more then 1 and at worst less then. Taking a dollar from me and giving it to you doesn't magically turn it into a dollar fifty or as some might claim 4 dollars. How can that possibly work? Once you stop believing in this fantasy you can barely spend the time to read a Krugman column. Other then as I do to laugh at him and giggle.

The real fantasy is that we have to (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by Anne on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:41:51 AM EST

act now to prevent a deficit crisis later, and the fantasy-bordering-on-deliberate-manipulation-of-the-numbers is that the only way to do that is to cut spending on entitlement and other social safety-net programs and reduce taxes on the wealthiest among us.

As Krugman points out, neither Ryan, nor the CBO has told, shall we say, the whole story: when you estimate deficit projections based only on spending cuts, without taking revenue losses from tax cuts into account, you've got an incomplete equation at best, and at worst, you're just flat-out lying in pursuit of your real agenda, which is starting to look a lot like "let's make the rich richer with tax cuts, and help these old, sick and poor people to their heavenly reward a little sooner by slashing programs that help support them."

So, as Krugman points out, the Tax Policy Center:

stepped into the breach. Its numbers indicate that the Ryan plan would reduce revenue by almost $4 trillion over the next decade. If you add these revenue losses to the numbers The Post cites, you get a much larger deficit in 2020, roughly $1.3 trillion.

[my emphasis]

So, what "problem" is Ryan's plan solving? The rich aren't rich enough, and the old, the sick and the poor are dragging us down, so screw them, and do it as soon as possible?"

It's a flim-flam, a bamboozle, a con job that is percolating among all the Serious People, and happily disseminated through a media that revere the Serious People, and which, as we know, almost never take the time to actually delve into the details or ask whether people like Ryan and Pete Petersen are right, or examine the consequences of their being wrong. This is all leading up to the findings and recommendations of the Deficit (Cat Food) Commission - of which Paul Ryan is a member - which plans to present those findings to a lame-duck Congress, post-election.

Do yourself a favor and go read - if you haven't already - Jamie Galbraith's statement to that commission; there's a lot of food for thought there.


I am no fan of Ryan's roadmap (none / 0) (#3)
by Buckeye on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 09:11:19 AM EST

but Krugman is also a fraud. What kind of an economist writes this kind of crap in a national newspaper. It is one thing to disagree with someone and point out why you think they are wrong. But how many economists not only disagree with a plan, but impune the character of the plan's author? Krugman cannot just point out why he disagrees, but calls Ryan a lying fraud.

My favorite story demonstrating the stupidity of Krugman's keynesian economics is from Milton Freidman. About 40 years ago Freidman was in an Asian country where the government was extremely eager to show off a public works project digging a canal. Milton was astonished and remarked to his government guide that the hordes of workers were not using any heavy equipment. The guide replied, "You don't understand, Mr. Friedman. This is a jobs program. That's why we only have men with shovels." Friedman said, "Well, if it's a jobs program, why don't you take away their shovels and give them spoons.?"


Oooh (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 09:41:03 AM EST

Your feelings are hurt on Ryan's behalf?

Moreover, Ryan is a fraud, imo. I certainly think so and find it hilarious that you object to Krugman expressing his actual views on Ryan.

Too freaking funny.


No, my feelings are not hurt at all. (none / 0) (#12)
by Buckeye on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:06:40 AM EST

: Seemed like it (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:13:56 AM EST

You even called Krugman a fraud for saying Ryan is dishonest.
Never mind if Ryan is in fact, dishonest, economists should never say such things was your argument.
Sounds like hurt feelings to me.

Good point (none / 0) (#4)
by Slado on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 09:20:23 AM EST

One should not riducule Krugman because they don't like the way he riducules his opponents.

Kurgman is wrong. We'll leave it at that.

Also, awesome quote.

I like this one as well...

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand

One more from Friedman (none / 0) (#5)
by Slado on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 09:23:29 AM EST

We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes nonwork.

Who knew Friedman hated Wall Street? (5.00 / 7) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 09:41:55 AM EST

: ROTFL! (none / 0) (#24)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:22:06 AM EST

Hilarious (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 09:39:51 AM EST

Paul Krugman has never said that (none / 0) (#9)
by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 09:49:42 AM EST

the government can spend money "better" THAN the private sector. Please don't come here and spew vile lies. I checked your link. Nothing about Paul saying that there either.


Here are two more links that say PK (none / 0) (#11)
by Slado on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:06:22 AM EST

is wrong

Simply put Krugman has to rewrite history and ignor the obvoius to be right (namely that no stimulus has ever worked).

I'm not goign to convince BTD otherwise. He believes in his soul that the Krugman macro encomic theory is solid. So be it.


Ooops (none / 0) (#13)
by Slado on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:06:50 AM EST

: Unbelievable more lies (none / 0) (#25)
by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:22:08 AM EST

Just because some yahoo at the American Enterprise Institutue writes something, that doesn't make it factual. It usually only makes it propaganda
This is from the bogus propaganda article you link to

For the followers of John Maynard Keynes, economic activity consists of spending. When economic activity slows down, their prescription is to increase spending by government, businesses, consumers, or all three. Instead, what I like to say is that "economic activity consists of sustainable patterns of specialization and trade." This is my mantra of macroeconomics. (I also have a mantra of microeconomics, which is that "price discrimination explains everything." But that is another topic.)
And for those who aren't rocket scientists this is part of the definition of Keynesian economics from the wiki, emphasis is mine.

Keynesian economics (pronounced ˈkeɪnziən, also called Keynesianism and Keynesian theory) is a macroeconomic theory based on the ideas of 20th century British economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynesian economics argues that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes and therefore, advocates active policy responses by the public sector, including monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle.[1] The theories forming the basis of Keynesian economics were first presented in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936; the interpretations of Keynes are contentious, and several schools of thought claim his legacy.
Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy--predominantly private sector, but with a large role of government and public sector--and served as the economic model during the latter part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945-1973), though it lost some influence following the stagflation of the 1970s. The advent of the global financial crisis in 2007 has caused a resurgence in Keynesian thought. The former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, President of the United States Barack Obama, and other world leaders have used Keynesian economics to justify government stimulus programs for their economies.[2]
Keynesian economics is not all or nothing black and white strategies, very far from it. It is greatly conditions based, and the existing economic conditions are such that only government stimulus can create jobs at this time. Without the first government stimulus we would have shed many more jobs by now. We will continue to shed jobs without a second stimulus, and it was acknowledged when the first stimulus took place that a second was going to be needed further down the road.

I'm convinced buy the evidence (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:12:41 AM EST

Not by my possibly existent soul.


Well then what has he said (none / 0) (#15)
by Slado on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:10:22 AM EST

Deficits don't matter?

More government spending is what's needed and the stimulus wasn't big enough?

Etc... etc...

I propose that in order for these statements to be true you must believe the government can spend money better then the private sector becuase large taxes and borrowing are what's necessary to create all this government spending.

When the government borrows lots of money then the private sector can't. Same thing as just taking it out of the economy.

Notice how hard it is for private lendors to lend money.

We have a huge debt problem and all this deficit spending doesn't make it easier, it makes it harder.

Either way, agree to disagree.


As I write this, corporations are sitting on more (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by steviez314 on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:21:33 AM EST

cash than ever--they don't need to borrow.

Ten year US gov't bonds are yielding 2.82%, so the market doesn't seem to be saying that gov't borrowing is a problem for them, maybe just for you.

You seem to think there's some kind of credit crunch. What there is is a lack of demand. And yes, gov't can create demand better than the private sector.


Dick Cheney is THE ONE who said that (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:28:15 AM EST

deficits don't matter. And by God they didn't when he was on The Hill. Look at what they did! Now our economy is completely friggin busted broken, and the only input into it that can create a job right now or save a job is government money. There are no other inputs, everything out there is leveraged to the 9th power or more. And defaults without jobs will kick off worse deflation than what is coming our way. I shouldn't get so ticked at bullhonk like yours. It isn't as if anyone who is going to be responsible for this outcome outside the party of NO is going to listen to this insanity for a second. But if I've learned anything from this White House it is, if you don't like something you had better say so as loudly as possible or you will be run over.


You propose what? (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:12:11 AM EST

Silly stuff.


: If it doesn't fit (none / 0) (#19)
by NYShooter on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:14:43 AM EST

into a one sentence sound bite it can't work.

What caused the crisis of 2008? (none / 0) (#21)
by Buckeye on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:15:13 AM EST

Debt.

According to Krugman, what is the solution?

That is not an economic vision, it is a non-sequitor.


Yes (5.00 / 3) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:17:13 AM EST

That''s the type of complex analysis I expect from a Paul Ryan acolyte.

Sheesh.

A better brand of conservative PLEASE!


Ron Paul on many things, not Ryan. (none / 0) (#26)
by Buckeye on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:27:24 AM EST

In case you had not noticed, stimulating more credit creation and more borrowing to solve the problem of a housing sector drowning in debt and a federal government that will be $18 trillion in debt in 2015 (if we include municipal bonds and the $7 trillion of new deficits in the budget through 2015 - not to mention $8 trillion trade deficit) is not working.


Hmmm (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:32:25 AM EST

What in the hell does any of that have to do with Krugman.

The Zero Bound - ever heard of it? Again, a better class of conservative please.


Who is stimulating more (none / 0) (#29)
by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:35:58 AM EST

Credit "Creation"?

The party of NO is. The party of NO started all this, and now stand in the way of repairing any of it. They loved them some predatory lending though and some unregulated markets that did nothing except create unsecured debt leveraged to the hundredth power.

Stimulating credit "creation" indeed :)


You may want to go back (none / 0) (#40)
by Buckeye on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 01:10:41 PM EST

and take a look at some of the legislation Bill Clinton signed during his term under the advisement of Mr. Summers - Obama's current economic advisor. You want to see some deregulation and credit creation???...wow. I am no republican, but you cannot lay this mess 100% at their feet.


I'm interested in today (none / 0) (#43)
by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 07:27:16 AM EST

There is always a progression, one step always leads to the next. And once again....who is fostering and is actually refusing to end something called Credit "Creation" today....at this time?


Oh come on... (none / 0) (#44)
by Buckeye on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 08:47:41 AM EST

Because someone started something a while ago means further behavior is somewhat excuseable due to "progression?" Was it okay that LBJ escalated the Vietnam war because Kennedy already had troops there?

And the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act was by far the most sweeping banking deregulation bill in American history. Read this link http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/bank-n01.shtml. This was an uncanny predictor of what would happen if this bill passed.


: the Financial Services Modernization Act (none / 0) (#45)
by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 12:41:11 PM EST

has allowed for giant economic devastation. And once again, who fought to water down any of the legislation that was just passed so that that could not be rectified. If you really want to understand this go here.
All My Love,
Tracy the firebagging PUMA :)

Fact: (none / 0) (#36)
by my opinion on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 11:14:47 AM EST

In reality he has argued against any blanket theory that deficits don't matter.

His arguments are formed around a basic truth and applies to most things in life; how much is appropriate for the situation at hand.


Professor Krugman cites (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by KeysDan on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:42:28 AM EST

the glowing profile of Paul Ryan on Monday on the front page of the Washington Post. He might have also included the rather fawning NYT article by Monica Davey on the same day.

Despite the NYT's rosy portrayal of Ryan's intellectual economic heft (he studied economics in college and once intended to seek an advanced degree from UChicago's School of Economics--lot's of credit for intentions) his sterling endorsements (President Obama saw a serious proposal; Sarah Palin calls him "sharp", and, understandably, Newt Gingrich, lavishes his praise) his fitness (intense exercise using P-90X) and his hair (thick as Rod Blagojevich's, but with a more contemporary style--I would say, appropriately, a Reagan pompadour), the innovative "Roadmap" is warmed over Contract with America.

Social Security is "saved" by privatization and Medicare costs are staunched by elimination of the program and replacement with vouchers--vouchers that decrease in value over time. No bureaucratized death panels, just old-fashioned, economically driven self-rationing--you decide, blow your voucher on that abdominal doubling-over pain, or hold off in case of a heart attack later that year. Remember, keep that old hat, fashions have a way of coming back.

To those who are upset (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by Democratic Cat on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 01:42:46 PM EST

Because they think this rewards bad behavior, think of it this way: You live in a rowhouse, connected to the next-door neighbor with a common wall. Your inconsiderate neighbor smokes in bed, falls asleep, and sets his house on fire. Now your house is in danger and you are standing there with a garden hose. Suppose water is really expensive. Would you refuse to put out the fire?

We are all interconnected with each other economically. The value of my home and my ability to have a job and to support myself are threatened when the economy is as terrible as it is now. This plan seems likely to help not only my neighbor, but me too because of all the economic connections among us. I didn't smoke in bed, but I'm in favor of turning on the hose--not only to help my neighbor but to help me too.

And in any case, many of those neighbors weren't smoking in bed, they were suckered into leaving their window open and Countrywide and others lit a match and tossed it in.

It's true that you can't tell the reckless homeowners from the merely feckless, but we have to face the fact that in order to help anyone at all, some people will get some things that maybe they don't deserve.

: Sorry, clicked on wrong thread (none / 0) (#42)
by Democratic Cat on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 01:48:20 PM EST

Wish I could delete my own comments when I do something so boneheaded!

definitely (none / 0) (#14)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:08:34 AM EST

a friday headline

We still can't figure out... (none / 0) (#37)
by Dadler on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 11:28:09 AM EST

...what money is, what it should do to serve us, what it should do to better society at large. Sadly, it's just casino chips controlled by the degenerate gambling of those who control the largest portion of it.

pathetic.