A bigger danger to the improving economy than rising prices is budget cutting demands from...

A bigger danger to the improving economy than rising prices is budget cutting demands from Republicans, Paul Krugman writes. Negative long-run consequences aside, the cuts would directly and indirectly lead to the elimination of hundreds of thousands of jobs, he says, which could "short-circuit the virtuous circle of rising incomes and improving finances."

Comments (12)
  • fodget
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
    When are people going to realize this guy is just a propagandist of the left and consistently wrong unless your desire is a Soviet or Cuban style dictatorship with everything controlled by uneducated, lazy union organized controlled non workers lead by incompetents like the current President.
    4 Mar 2011, 10:44 AM Reply Like
  • bigazul
    , contributor
    Comments (1073) | Send Message
    Not biting today...ha!
    4 Mar 2011, 10:47 AM Reply Like
  • CerpherJoe
    , contributor
    Comments (33) | Send Message
    These guys are just genetically incapable of cutting spending. They begin spewing anything and everything.


    Watch for the implosions.


    I can't wait.
    4 Mar 2011, 10:47 AM Reply Like
  • Shimmers
    , contributor
    Comments (80) | Send Message
    "Negative long-run consequences aside"..... best caveat of all time?
    4 Mar 2011, 10:49 AM Reply Like
  • lafano
    , contributor
    Comments (219) | Send Message
    SA gives this loon too much coverage. He is a narcissistic self serving ideologue - always touting socialist/marxist ideals and never addressing the heart of the matter. He is a real joke, extremely decisive and promotes propaganda and covers up the real problems. If it's not his idea, it's a bad idea especially if it's coming from a Republican. It's clearly evident that he doesn't care about our country, only himself. How can he promote more spending when we are broke??? Raising taxes is his only solution. Socialism simply does not work and he wants the readers to believe it does, which is a big reason why readership and subscriptions of the leftest NY Times continues to decline. I should have shorted their stock a year ago! This loon believes in bigger government and unfunded government programs while giving up our freedom for total dependency on government. How much more can we pay for (property) taxes to subsidize these outrageous / sweet deals created by the unions representing public employees through collective bargaining with the same people they put in power. The bottom line is - he's a loon and has zero credibility, and is simply a puppet for progressive liberals and socialists.
    4 Mar 2011, 10:53 AM Reply Like
  • Essence
    , contributor
    Comments (83) | Send Message
    I live in Canada and I just don't get how the US plans to get out of their mess. Your federal debt is 100% of your GDP. Your deficit is well over 10% of GDP - twice as high as the worst non-World War II year (1983 - 6%)


    How is the US ever going to get a hold of this spiraling debt problem? Especially without radical cuts to spending. Can you grow your economy 100% in the next 5 years? That might not be enough. Inflate the debt away? That would cause huge interest rate spikes which would make debt servicing unbearable and strangle economic growth.


    Canadians owe $16K for every man woman and child in federal debt. The UK about 30K. Americans owe over 44K and rapidly climbing. Maybe I'm just simple - but I don't see a mathematical way out. Anyone?
    4 Mar 2011, 10:54 AM Reply Like
  • cbc
    , contributor
    Comments (411) | Send Message
    That sums it up pretty nicely! Maybe you are simple. But remember the adage KISS.
    4 Mar 2011, 12:45 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3527) | Send Message
    I just increased my EWC position today.
    4 Mar 2011, 03:33 PM Reply Like
  • Tony Petroski
    , contributor
    Comments (6356) | Send Message
    This from our Nobel Laureate:


    "Negative long-run consequences aside, the cuts would directly and indirectly lead to the elimination of hundreds of thousands of jobs, he says..."


    He's right.


    Job Description: "Arrive when you want to, do anything or better, nothing at all, professional appearance a must."


    (Posting for opening at the Energy Department)
    4 Mar 2011, 11:03 AM Reply Like
  • phoneranger
    , contributor
    Comments (348) | Send Message
    4 Mar 2011, 11:08 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3194) | Send Message
    It would short-curcuit his wet dream of the government running all aspects of everyone's lives!


    We need to be eliminating entire agencies, not just programs.
    4 Mar 2011, 06:48 PM Reply Like
  • cbc
    , contributor
    Comments (411) | Send Message
    As much as I believe we need some regulations, I could not agree more. Eliminating agencies is the right idea. Half of them have agendas that are contrary to the other half. We have the EPA working for an opposing agenda to the Forest Service for example. Both spending tax payers dollars to lead us to opposing futures. A nice example in the business world is the accounting department counting pennies while the engineering department is blowing its budget to overbuild something but not working together to find the most productive method of production. However if business was run like our current and recent past governments they would be bankrupt in no time. STREAMLINE, cut the budgets (and agencies) and lets run this country like an OLD school fortune 500 country.


    Krugman lives in a bubble and MY old economics teachers would laugh at him. As I remember it there was a concept called "best use" for all resources including human resources. The market finds these uses and if allowed to do its job, instead of using human capital for wacky government programs (paid for by taxpayers) the market would find the best use for people. Wallah, JOBS and productive, economy building jobs. I guess Krugman believes that if we just pay people to do "stuff" that will build the economy and our future. If only it was that simple. Productive must not be a word in his vocabulary.


    Sorry for the diatribe, but we have to decide whether the USA is at its true core a capitalist or communist country. I think we clearly know where Krugman stands and although everyone is entitled to their opinion he needs to go somewhere where Communism is the decided course or admits that he does not believe in capitalism in the USA or STFU. And we the people of the USA need to decide what our our true course is. If we decide that we need central government regulation of free market capitalism then that needs to be also run by by the principles of a free market and like a business.


    Every business decides what their objectives are and then they decide the best course (most productive way) to make the most money (to be the most productive). Why the hell shouldn't our government work the same way in a "capitalist country"?
    4 Mar 2011, 09:37 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs