Seeking Alpha

The Paul Ryan budget plan is "ludicrous and cruel," Paul Krugman writes, and shouldn't be taken...

The Paul Ryan budget plan is "ludicrous and cruel," Paul Krugman writes, and shouldn't be taken seriously. Ryan calls for spending on all items other than Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to fall to 3.5% of GDP, less than the U.S. now spends on defense alone. "How could such a drastic shrinking of government take place without crippling essential public functions?" (previous)
Comments (66)
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    Paul Ryan, Donald Trumpt, Carl Icahns are snake oil salesmen.
    8 Apr 2011, 10:56 AM Reply Like
  • DF1985
    , contributor
    Comments (64) | Send Message
     
    Paul Krugman is a socialist dummy.
    8 Apr 2011, 10:59 AM Reply Like
  • montanamark
    , contributor
    Comments (1452) | Send Message
     
    more proof - liberalism is a mental disease
    8 Apr 2011, 10:59 AM Reply Like
  • rick flair
    , contributor
    Comments (369) | Send Message
     
    i guess its cruel if your a human filth commie, like him.....couldn't wish for semi truck head-on with a better person...
    8 Apr 2011, 11:00 AM Reply Like
  • montanamark
    , contributor
    Comments (1452) | Send Message
     
    no one can explain obama or dems budget position. are they arguing for more spending, more waste? how can polls be taken when the dems dont even articulate a position
    8 Apr 2011, 11:01 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4525) | Send Message
     
    Reid just spoke and addressed the Dems sticking points, and he spoke rather eloquently.
    8 Apr 2011, 11:13 AM Reply Like
  • montanamark
    , contributor
    Comments (1452) | Send Message
     
    your joking right? do you find lying to be eloquent? harry is the chief liar. the country is BK, ben is running ponzi and you are praising reid?
    8 Apr 2011, 11:16 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4525) | Send Message
     
    No I'm not joking. Regardless of the stupid stuff he has pulled and keeps on pulling if you take your partisanship out of the equation he made valid points.
    8 Apr 2011, 11:57 AM Reply Like
  • montanamark
    , contributor
    Comments (1452) | Send Message
     
    so you are fine with him making the argument that the primary budget issue is republicans attempting to prevent women from getting healthcare - translation: obama and I want to use as much taxpayer $ to murder as many babies as possible
    8 Apr 2011, 12:09 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    The NOT SO FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS have been scamming the american people for 30 years. They continually justify reducing benefits to the citizenry and tax breaks for the milliionares and billionares using hotbutton issues as a smokescreen for their diabolical political agenda.

     

    I'm afraid it's not going to stop since they now own all the "liberal media" (Even thought they own it they will continue to use the liberal media as a "Boogie Man". They own the supreme court so that now huge corporations are "People" and can spend as much as they want on the NOT SO FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE agenda.

     

    All that can be hoped for is a huge backlash when they overreach like in Wisconsin, Ohio, New Jersey, Indiana,.............
    8 Apr 2011, 12:37 PM Reply Like
  • radicall
    , contributor
    Comments (531) | Send Message
     
    think the dems are doing the right thing by not yielding on NPR or planned parentgood. Specially Planned Parenthood (who is not just an abortion provider, the test for / treat STDs, provide birth control etc to people who can't afford these things including college students. The federal money does not pay for abortions, even though it helps keep the facilities running)

     

    That said.. both parties are full of cra*

     

    $180 Billion in ag subsidies (including federal state and local, direct and inderect), or 20 billion in direct federal subsidy See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

     

    it is all politics why they won't get rid of those subsidies or at least cap them to a certain amount (say 500k) for people who aren't technically "Farmers" but rather corporations like ADM and Cargill.

     

    How about subsidies for Oil companies? Do we really think they are too poor to pay their bills? For example - Is that subsidy more important than preventing spread of STDs in the population which incidentally costs the government only $350 million per year? About a dollar per person in the country.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

     

    Usually poor people (or those without insurance) go to planned parenthood.

     

    less abortion (for poor people) = spending more on welfare, medicare, education, etc.

     

    Less contraception = more babies born to parents who can't support them = spending more on welfare, medicare, education, etc.

     

    This isn't a budget issue at all! It is GOP trying to push stupid ideology by holding the threat of a shutdown on the federal government.
    8 Apr 2011, 07:55 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (4256) | Send Message
     
    Here's the reason the Dems don't want to give up on the Planned Parenthood gravy train. It's about laundering taxpayer dollars through what are effectively Dem political organs to fund political campaigning. This is the kind of corrupt use of government funds you expect to see in a 3rd world banana republic.

     

    washingtonexaminer.com...
    9 Apr 2011, 12:01 AM Reply Like
  • radicall
    , contributor
    Comments (531) | Send Message
     
    Keep thumping Cincin
    9 Apr 2011, 02:05 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (4256) | Send Message
     
    rad, reality sucks doesn't it? Still, it's clear from your numerous comments to this thread that you won't let it get in the way of a good rant.
    9 Apr 2011, 03:32 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (8852) | Send Message
     
    Heeeeeeeeees Baaaaaaaaaack............
    Note to SA editors----You all must get a laugh each week to read the comments that Krugman brings out.
    As for me, I've previously said all I can say.
    8 Apr 2011, 11:02 AM Reply Like
  • bigazul
    , contributor
    Comments (1069) | Send Message
     
    I'm not biting today. You evil, instigating SA editors.
    8 Apr 2011, 11:04 AM Reply Like
  • WACG
    , contributor
    Comments (377) | Send Message
     
    Witless meat sacks all. The Republicans will take care of their masters no matter what happens. After all, their masters have paid for their services (hint: their masters are not the American Public). Here is a suggestion - let all of the corporations that paid to get the Republicans elected pay their salaries instead of having salaries paid by the taxpayers. May they all burn in the seventh circle of Hell.
    8 Apr 2011, 11:06 AM Reply Like
  • montanamark
    , contributor
    Comments (1452) | Send Message
     
    get clue. wall street, big banks and big corporation contribute more to obama and dems than republicans. dems are paid for puppets by unions, special interests, soros and whoring banks. republicans are trying to cut waste and spending and you are cheering it on.
    8 Apr 2011, 11:13 AM Reply Like
  • mowjo
    , contributor
    Comments (96) | Send Message
     
    montana I want to see proof on that one.
    8 Apr 2011, 11:23 AM Reply Like
  • catamount
    , contributor
    Comments (376) | Send Message
     
    Proof? These idiots can't think beyond left or right (as they've been manipulated to think in these binary terms). They (either side) don't need facts, they just state shit like it's fact if it supports their world view.
    8 Apr 2011, 11:31 AM Reply Like
  • montanamark
    , contributor
    Comments (1452) | Send Message
     
    open your eyes and read
    www.opensecrets.org/pr...

     

    GS, JPM Google on and on.
    you think unions contribute to republicans
    8 Apr 2011, 11:32 AM Reply Like
  • WACG
    , contributor
    Comments (377) | Send Message
     
    WOW! Your ignorance is truly breathtaking! Do you get your news from ANY SOURCE other than FOX Noise? Oh well, I don't care about you or your kind anymore. I only hope that dim wittedness gets its just reward. Just remember when the "Tea Party" knuckle-draggers lead their minions over the cliff they will NOT be joining you in the suffering.

     

    PS. Do you know the purpose of capital letters? Never mind ...
    8 Apr 2011, 11:55 AM Reply Like
  • montanamark
    , contributor
    Comments (1452) | Send Message
     
    oh yes - the refined arguments of the caring left. name call. call people who dont agree with you stupid (even if your guy campaigned in all 57 states) blame fox news (luv ya katie).
    soros play book. avoid the substance - attack the person
    8 Apr 2011, 12:12 PM Reply Like
  • billddrummer
    , contributor
    Comments (1741) | Send Message
     
    Someone forgot his meds today...
    8 Apr 2011, 12:30 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Couldn't agree with you more. Except perhaps the part about the seventh circle of hell. They should get a sever sunburn however, just like the one "Crying John Boner" has.
    8 Apr 2011, 12:39 PM Reply Like
  • shrisinghvi
    , contributor
    Comments (9) | Send Message
     
    How did the world work when these essential functions were not done by the government?
    Every body just wants to be a parasite and depend on the government instead of standing on their own and likes of Krugman want to encourage that even further.
    Government's job is to govern - provide law and order and not food, employment, medical care to every citizen. If Government is supposed to do all that, then what are citizens supposed to do for themselves? Just free ride with no responsibilities?
    8 Apr 2011, 11:09 AM Reply Like
  • catamount
    , contributor
    Comments (376) | Send Message
     
    How about roads? National Parks? I'm all for gutting the federal gov, but it seems the two-party system simply wants to grow the federal government, they only differ in where they want to grow it.
    8 Apr 2011, 11:33 AM Reply Like
  • radicall
    , contributor
    Comments (531) | Send Message
     
    @shrisinghvi - people killed, stole or died.

     

    I'm sure you would be happy to see people starve and die, rather than give them food. I am not saying that people don't abuse the social safety nets, they do, and that should be prevented where possible.

     

    Here is a picture you get by adding up a lot of the GOP efforts:

     

    a) Get rid of abortions and birth control access to the poor/middle class, so more unwanted babies are born.

     

    b) Get rid of child labor laws (Bills pending in Maine and Missouri) and lower wage for workers under 18

     

    c) Get rid of unions who will try to protect worker abuse, and get rid of the voice of labor from the political process as well.

     

    d) Allow corporations to contribute unlimited amounts to political campaigns so that they overshadow all other sources of funding. Election outcomes eventually to be controlled by who corporations like rather than who people like.

     

    e) To get the favor of corporations, give them major tax breaks at the expense of middle class (consumption tax for example, since higher income groups spend much smaller percentage of their income)

     

    f) As people get more desparate, crime will increase - get private prison companies involved (the arizona illegal immigration bill for example was originated by private prison corporations like CXW, the idea being to detain these illegal immigrants for long duration and fill up private prisons)

     

    g) Get rid of social security so poor old folks don't have a choice but to work till they die (probably for a reduced wage since they aren't as productive)

     

    h) get rid of medicare so old people are forced to spend what little money they have on buying health insurance from private compaines, who in turn will donate to political campaigns.

     

    i) Get rid of any pollution laws so that companies can freely pollute soil, air, fresh water and oceans to increase short term profits.

     

    This in now way says that all liberal agenda is good or right, just that the right wing agenda is SCARY! If you disagree on the facts, please feel free to share and cite your source. I would be happy to do so if you want a credible source to back anything I said.
    8 Apr 2011, 08:37 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3184) | Send Message
     
    Unfortunately for folks like yourself, all you have left are "red herrings".

     

    Most people here don't support either Democrats nor Republicans.

     

    And more and more Americans fall into that category of rejecting both.

     

    Lets go through your list:
    A. I see no one saying they want to get rid of birth control, nor basic health services for the poor and disadvantaged. I do see a few politicians ranting and raving about tax-payer funded abortions. It is currently the law of the land that taxpayer money can't fund abortions. Beyond that 99% of the people are just fine with the way things are for the time being - we have more important things to worry about.

     

    B. Child labor??? I see no politicians wanting to return to the era of 10 year olds working in slaughterhouses. I do see local people wanting their teenagers to be allowed to work on the family farm, work in the family business, and get an after-school job to learn some responsibility and begin to handle money (yes I know the horror - they should learn just to give it to the government). And people realize that their kids could get jobs at the rate of say $6.50 an hour but not at $9.50 an hour.

     

    C. Get rid of unions? Well lets seperate them into private and public unions. No one is saying private unions should be abolished. Public employees are already protected by federal and state law. So what else does the union provide? Oh, they provide money to give to politicians who will give more money to the bureaucrats. Now even given that, most people are fine with public unions..... that have some restraints placed on them to recognize the different environment. Really radical things like - "people get to choose whether or not to join". Like, public employees paying for their own health care and retirement packages. Like, teachers being judged on merit. Like, the abolishion of "step raises", final year "enhancing of one's compensation", like 20 years of work and then 40 years of pensions..... more truly radical things. And its the realization that as the private sector improves efficiency every year - the public union's work rules ensure we see no gains in efficiency - just gains in public employees. So some of us work day and night to provide for our families and some of us show up for work a little after 9, run errands if needed around 11, take an extra 10 minutes for lunch, arrange a personal appointment at 2:20, and then leave "a little early to beat the traffic so that I can get home and change for my son's soccer game" at 4:40. You can figure out who is the small business owner and who is the bureaucrat (and my apologies to the 20-30% of our public servants that really do work hard and try to serve - unfortunately your overwhelmed with colleagues that think mediocrity is all that is required).

     

    D. If we'd get the government out of picking winners and losers the corporations would quickly realize they were wasting their money!

     

    E. Most of the corporate tax breaks come from government trying to engineer behavior or simply vote buying. Conservatives are all for getting rid of corporate welfare at all levels of government spending.

     

    F. Thats truly a far flung conspiracy theory. Now the private prison companies are running the country? I think most people are pushing for releasing non-violent offenders since we can't pay for them to be locked up!!!

     

    G. I believe its called reforming social security - raising the retirement age, doing some means testing, telling folks the truth - your social security payment is a safety net - thats a one bedroom apartment, an old tv and walks to the local senior center. Its not tee times and two vacations to visit the grandkids - want that? Then save some money and defer some of those purchases when your 35.

     

    H. How about addressing the fact that a large % of money is spent by a small % of the people, and that another decent % of money is spent dying. Both emotional topics. Both have to be addressed. We can't pay for all the health care for all the people. There have to be choices made and beyond those choices people are responsible for themselves. It will mean that some people don't receive every possible treatment they might very late in their lives and other (who can afford it) will. And it will mean more people passing away in their homes instead of in ICU's, nursing homes, assisted living facilities - not really a bad thing IMO.

     

    I. Yes, I see all the people marching in the streets to take away clean water!! Oh, actually there aren't any. But thats ok, lets try to confuse the folks and mix taxing carbon emissions with existing clean air and water regulations.

     

    And that actually is a good segway. Confuse and scare seems to be the last arrow in the liberals quiver. The only problem is that people are more scared about the coming financial debt tsunami than they are in your old, tired, and untrue liberal excuses to keep taxing and spending.

     

    And to save one of your future points. I also support new tax brackets for 500K, 1 million, 10 million and 50 million (at 49.99%). You see, we have to pay back what we've already wasted. Its called being responsible and telling people the truth. Something sorely lacking in our political class today.
    8 Apr 2011, 09:45 PM Reply Like
  • radicall
    , contributor
    Comments (531) | Send Message
     
    @davidbc responding to your reply by points
    a) I am not talking about "most people" - but the GOP agenda. Did you know that a compromise on passing the budget could not be reached today because of disagreement on Planned Parenthoold?

     

    b) Plenty of politicians want to facilitate an environment where you could have 12 year olds working in slaughter houses at below minimum wage. If it was for just family members working within a family business I'd be for it. See www.progressivestates....

     

    Some states want to let them skip schooling by saying they are being "home schooled". They say "parents know best". If "parents know best" why do we have CPS arresting parents for molesting their children or taking away the kids if the parents are addicted to drugs. Why don't we say "parents know best" then?

     

    c) I am with you on the right to work and a lot of the public salaries and retirement packages - maybe the reason why they look so great now is because private sector salaries are flat over the last 10 years. So maybe it isn't that public sector needs to pay less, but rather private sector needs to pay more?

     

    For teachers pay for performance works to some degree, but encourages cheating (read Freakonomics) and doesn't take into account difference in limitations of students and their socioeconomic background. They also get paid very little given the educational attainment required. Can you hire a star trader on Wall street for 50k an year? How do you expect to hire star teachers at 25k?

     

    d) With things like environmentally friendly techs that have a long term benefit, but aren't currently cost competetive, I do support the idea of government picking "winners and losers". Solar will be cheaper than coal in 10 years - but right now it depends on subsidies. Most other cases where there is no social or environmental benefit - I agree.

     

    e) Engineering behavior okay IF it benefits society/economy in the long run. Probably better done by taxes like Cap and Trade rather than incentives. Vote buying - not cool.

     

    f) I wish what you say were true. But please read this article if you get a chance (a bit lengthy but well written) www.npr.org/templates/...

     

    g) Social Security It's my money. I pay into it - my employer pays into it on my behalf. How is it anyone's business if I am taking a vacation or walks to the community center with that money when I retire? It is a very small amount barely enough for sustenance- if I am taking a vacation, it would be because of my savings and investments. You want a construction worker to be doing hard labor at 70?

     

    h) I agree that a lot of health care money is spent on terminal care rather than managing health and some politically correct solution has to be implemented (not easy to say - let's pull the plug on granny, she is dying anyhow). But say if your father is 70 and can't afford to pay 2 million for a heart surgery and follow up care, would you want to live in a country that says "too bad grandpa, go home and die."?

     

    If Americans increase their savings rate to say 12%-15% to deal with this new reality, that helps the economy right?

     

    i) You mean for example mountain top removal for coal extraction is not legal or that it doesn't hurt the environment? Or do you mean that CO2 emissions do not hurt the environment?

     

    I am glad we agree at least on the tax part of the equation to pay for our past mistakes, rather than cutting spending only to give it away by reducing top tier tax rate to 25% as Rep. Paul Ryan is suggesting (for next year's budget)

     

    8 Apr 2011, 10:56 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3184) | Send Message
     
    I'm afraid you live in la-la land.

     

    We had a 10% savings rate in this country as late as 1980. The reason is that people expected to take care of themselves. They didn't look to the government to provide for them. And our country seemed to work pretty well as I recall. And it is good for the economy in the long run - more money for investment, less reliance on government, less financial stress.

     

    And I've got bad news for you - social security money you've been sending to the government isn't your money any more. Its gone - poof - gone! Its been spent several times over and now you "owe" more money. And yes, if you a construction worker and your 70 years old and you haven't saved anything and you want more than the bare minimum of social security, then I guess you'll have to work. Imagine that - your choices and decisions have consequences. What kind of nonsense is it that the government "bails you out" of your own bad financial decisions?

     

    Rather than reading a bunch of political hack things try reading about the writings of our original founders and some of the situations that were faced early in our country's history. You'll find men that would sacrifice everything for liberty and freedom. How can we now live in a country, where there is expected that there should be no sacrifice and we are "entitled" to things other than our liberty and freedom - and most people are happy trading them for "social programs" and "feeling safer".

     

    Soon we might find that these are one-way trades, no deposit - no return!
    9 Apr 2011, 08:48 AM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (8852) | Send Message
     
    You have at the trough of liberal progressive propaganda way too long and it has affected your way of thinking.

     

    To comment on just one point, the teachers, if you calculate their salary on hours worked---they are overpaid for what they do.
    9 Apr 2011, 09:27 AM Reply Like
  • radicall
    , contributor
    Comments (531) | Send Message
     
    By liberty and freedom you mean the Patriot Act? National Security letters and such?
    9 Apr 2011, 05:09 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    I'm afraid your not seeing what Radicall sees because your not bothering to look. Most people here will want to put you on meds for criticizing the NOT SO FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE agenda. The NSFC'S are all for social programs........they just have to be for the upper 2% and corporations. Give GE three billion dollars and that's ok. Give Joe the plummer unemployment and that's appalling.
    10 Apr 2011, 09:10 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    First off WYO, you have no idea how many hours most teachers put in. You think when 3:30 rolls around they're done. For the most part they probably have another 3 or 4 hours to work on grading papers and working on the agenda for the next day, You have no appreciation for our teachers because you don't have a clue. Did you attend school?????
    10 Apr 2011, 09:14 PM Reply Like
  • DF1985
    , contributor
    Comments (64) | Send Message
     
    It is amazing how someone as intelligent as Krugman is so bereft of any wisdom. His economic analysis is usually stellar. His solutions are polar opposite.
    8 Apr 2011, 11:11 AM Reply Like
  • Angel Martin
    , contributor
    Comments (1350) | Send Message
     
    If one looks at the histories of decline of once powerful and wealthy nations (Roman empire, medieval Spain, Edwardian England) there are always plenty of credible reform plans, but they always fail due to the power of entrenched interests and their propagandists (like Krugman).

     

    I would like to believe that the US would not go the way of Edwardian England or Medieval Spain, but I think the entrenched interests are powerful enough to prevent any real reform.
    8 Apr 2011, 11:11 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Yes Angel.....your absolutely right. And currently the entrenched interests are the NOT SO FISCALLY CONSERVATIVES that have no vision and a vocabulary of one word........"NO".

     

    If it was up to them we would still be trying to put a satellite up that would rival Sputnik.
    10 Apr 2011, 09:18 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (8852) | Send Message
     
    Krugman is a magnet for the trolls...................
    8 Apr 2011, 11:12 AM Reply Like
  • montanamark
    , contributor
    Comments (1452) | Send Message
     
    he is the standard bearer for the left
    8 Apr 2011, 11:17 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Does that mean your stuck to Krugman by and invisible force???:-))
    10 Apr 2011, 08:28 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3531) | Send Message
     
    "How could such a drastic shrinking of government take place without crippling essential public functions?"

     

    Whenever the government sets up a new program it automatically becomes 'essential' and can never be discarded since the bureaucratic employees will never admit their function is no longer necessary.
    8 Apr 2011, 11:12 AM Reply Like
  • Bo Peng
    , contributor
    Comments (475) | Send Message
     
    I wish Krugman would run for president, so that I could vote the other way.

     

    The guy makes Greenspan/Bernanke look sensible.
    8 Apr 2011, 11:14 AM Reply Like
  • 867046
    , contributor
    Comments (398) | Send Message
     
    When Senator Taft expressed his outrage on Ike's first budget, Ike replied, with equanimity, that he "could not agree that the country should have, or wanted, a tax cut ahead of a balanced budget, or a balanced budget ahead of national security."

     

    (Ike) strongly opposed the demonization of such programs as Social Security and remarked, "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security ... you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are Texas oil millionaires. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

     

    From "IKE" M. Korda
    8 Apr 2011, 11:19 AM Reply Like
  • aircraftdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    I have not read Paul Krugmans reply to budget cuts, but lets put some facts to it. During JFK's presidency the GDP to Federal spending was 14 percent. Under Obama, GDP to Federal spending around 24.7 percent and going higher. Lets look at more workers in the department of agriculture than farmers something wrong there you think? How about the funds to the arts. Do you understand how this is wasted. Lets say your putting on a play with union musicians. Your play say only needs say a violin, a flute, and maybe a piano. Well under the current rules in most plays paid for under the arts funding the whole orchestra gets paid even when they are not there. They need to go on unemployment like the rest of us. Get a job Paul Krugman out here in the private sector. You lazy good for nothing money sucking leaches get off my aching tax paying back. You clowns can't even add. Normal blue collar worker pays over fifty percent in taxes. Here add them up 6.2 % S.S. 6.2% S.S. Match by employer. Local sales tax 7%, property tax for me 8%, local income tax 2%, state income tax 6%, federal tax 15%, Medicare tax 1.65% That's not even adding in the federal fuel taxes on every gallon of gas. Or how about those excises taxes on buying a tire or you phone bill. Add it up over fifty percent and I am in the bottom tax brackets. Can you add you dumb liberals I think not.
    8 Apr 2011, 11:20 AM Reply Like
  • shrisinghvi
    , contributor
    Comments (9) | Send Message
     
    You forgot one more key tax....if you happen to be responsible and save unlike many in the country who borrow to the hilt - government will tax you another 50% when you die in form of estate tax. These politicians wont spare you a dime alive or dead....
    8 Apr 2011, 06:47 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3531) | Send Message
     
    If you're rich enough like Soros, Gates and Buffet, you can use your tax shelters to pay as much tax as G.E. (oh wait, they didn't pay any. They are too cozy with Obama.)
    8 Apr 2011, 10:52 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Perhaps your taxes would be less if the upper 2% and corporations paid their fair share. Maybe that's just a dumb liberal talking, or maybe its someone that thinks if you profit from doing business in the great country you should pay your fair share.

     

    The rich paying taxes does not mean there will be fewer jobs. They are already paying much less than their fair share and where are the jobs. The jobs are in emerging markets where they are investing the taxes that we are not collecting.

     

    I'm with you in some of the taxes we pay, but, some of them pay for things we, the citizenry benefit from. Taxes on every gallon of gas go to maintaining our roads. If we don't pay for that who will.....many of our roads are already S#!++Y. In my neck of the woods, property taxes pay for roads, police, schools, libraries etc. I guess we need to decide what we want to do without.

     

    10 Apr 2011, 08:41 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Obama can't catch a break. If he's friendly to business his "in bed with them". If he tries to make them act responsibly he's "Anti-business.
    10 Apr 2011, 08:50 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (4256) | Send Message
     
    Mongie, there's no relation between being business friendly and being in bed with a few large corporate cronies like GE that will push your agenda and finance your campaigns.
    11 Apr 2011, 11:24 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (4256) | Send Message
     
    The upper few percent pay way more than their fair share, as do the vast majority of corporations. The few like GE that are in bed with Obama are the exception.
    11 Apr 2011, 11:26 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Cinncinnatus, You simply have to be s#!++!NG me!!!!!!
    14 Apr 2011, 03:25 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (4256) | Send Message
     
    I don't doubt that, you're about as clueless as they come. You can find it in the IRS data. For tax year 2007 the top 1% paid 40% of taxes, the top 5% paid 60%, and the top 10% paid 71%. The bottom 50% pay less than 3% of taxes, and numerous studies that offset that with government transfers back to the bottom 50% show as a group they effectively pay no taxes.

     

    And the trend with the top paying a greater share is increasing. A decade ago those percentages for the top were 10 points less than they are now for each of those top groups..
    14 Apr 2011, 11:06 AM Reply Like
  • davidingeorgia
    , contributor
    Comments (2713) | Send Message
     
    Another day, another psychotic Krugman rant. (yawn)
    8 Apr 2011, 11:21 AM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    No politician is interested in getting down the debt or work on the budget. Everybody wants to score some points. My kids behaves better than this.

     

    8 Apr 2011, 11:22 AM Reply Like
  • montanamark
    , contributor
    Comments (1452) | Send Message
     
    you just make that up to feel better? you equate paul ryan with harry reid? get your head out of the sand. there is a huge difference.
    the people who argue that all politicians are the same are the ones that voted for obama and are looking to rationalize their mistake
    8 Apr 2011, 11:35 AM Reply Like
  • Bill S. Friend
    , contributor
    Comments (717) | Send Message
     
    Republicans can ask for a cut down to 3.5% of GDP and settle for somewhat less. The pain will be much greater if we continue to spend the prosperity of future generations of Americans.
    8 Apr 2011, 11:28 AM Reply Like
  • Choosh
    , contributor
    Comments (436) | Send Message
     
    If Krugman thinks Ryan's plan shouldn't be taken seriously then I'm thinking it's a plan worth looking into. A classic nerd like Krugman gets invited to play with the beautiful people as long as he's their mouthpiece, the alternative for him resembles Junior High social failure.
    8 Apr 2011, 11:32 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (4256) | Send Message
     
    If Krugman were an economist he would know that it was inevitable that the growth in entitlement spending would crowd out almost all other spending in the federal budget. This trend as been going on since these programs began and is driven by demographic trends that are well-known and the effects well-understood (by competent economists). Even if he understood this, Krugman's ideology would prevent him from addressing it.
    8 Apr 2011, 11:36 AM Reply Like
  • stocknerd
    , contributor
    Comments (1395) | Send Message
     
    You poor conservatives, if there is not wild inflation this year I say you go apoplectic for sure. If you want to cut spending lets cut spending for those who don't need it----the rich for starters, all people in the over paid medical field, the defense department. Why can't conservatives stop subsidies for certain well paid and doing-quite-nicely-tha... interest groups like farmers and oil companies. Conservatives keep it up and suffer a crushing defeat in 2012. How is that tea party thing working out for you, Republicans?
    8 Apr 2011, 11:36 AM Reply Like
  • montanamark
    , contributor
    Comments (1452) | Send Message
     
    r u serious? were you asleep during the recent election when the tea party smashed the dems and obama delivered losses of historic proportions? you speak of the rich - you mean people who contributed to obama and are getting pay back like big banks unions and tech cos. did you see the stossel special on black farmers? feds paid out millions to blacks who simply had to claim they tried farming and it did not work. the tea party is working wonderfully against a corrupt MSM and existing gov. do you really want another election?
    8 Apr 2011, 11:54 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Go get "em stocknerd. These guys will pile on big time. It's like a 100 to one. 100 NOT SO FISCAL CONSERVATIVES here against a few sensible people!!!!!
    14 Apr 2011, 03:31 AM Reply Like
  • Christopher Grey
    , contributor
    Comments (117) | Send Message
     
    Hey Comrade Krugman, maybe your idea is that we should have the government spending 100% of GDP. That would be fair, right? Except they already tried that a few times in places like the Soviet Union, Maoist China, North Korea, and Cuba. It doesn't work so well and actually causes more poverty. Paul Ryan is trying to get this country back on track to be a market based, rather than a government run, economy. This is how the wealth was created in the first place that the government is now squandering on useless programs that create no value and make us poorer as a country by the day. Ironically, the Chinese and the Russians are now more market based and capitalist than we are. This is why they are kicking our butts economically these days. Fate does have a cruel sense of humor.
    8 Apr 2011, 11:39 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3184) | Send Message
     
    So I read through the article and I do agree with him that if the voucher system doesn't cover what seniors "need" (or more likely "desire") then there will be a politician to promise them more.

     

    What I find troubling is the idea that people cannot be self-sufficient. That is what he bases his arguement on - that society cannot function without government running a large part of individual's lives. IMO goverment exists to do what it is not realistic to expect an individual to do. So its not realistic to expect a single person to build a road from one town to another. Its not realistic to expect a single person to inspect ground water for toxins or other dangerous chemicals. Thats why we pay taxes, so that someone on our behalf can perform those duties.

     

    But thats not the issue. We have long since passed the point of government doing what an individual cannot do. I can walk into a restaraunt and decide its not the cleanest place I've ever seen and walk back out. I can go to a local doctor and negotiate a payment for the year for him to agree to see my family. I can pay a fee every year to the ambulance department in exchange for a guarantee that they will transport my family to the hospital in case of an emergency. I can decide what local farmer to buy produce from or not buy from based on my own experience, and those around me. The list goes on and on.

     

    And when the government starts doing on your behalf the things that you yourself are quite capable of doing...... it becomes about freedom and liberty. The person in government has just as much self interest as the local farmer, businessman/woman, etc. The difference is that your local farmer can't force you to do anything but the government person can. And it is way out of control.

     

    We take our freedom and liberty for granted in this country IMO. And over the past 30-40 years we've been willing to trade it away in exchange for "promises of things" and "feeling safer". We should ask ourselves if people like Nathan Hale felt safe as he marched to his hanging? I doubt it. Did the Continental Army feel safe as they froze to death at Valley Forge? I doubt it. But yet somehow their descendants cannot possibly face a future where the government tells them they have to take care of themselves and their families and the government is only there to provide a safety net to those at the very bottom and very young. How is that possible?

     

    I take no issue with people that want to change Ryan's plan. Propose something else and achieve fiscal sanity. Personally I'd take on social security - raising the retirement age is the easiest and most straight-forward way to reduce government expenditures. Its defensible IMO just due to the change in life expectancy since the program was implemented. Its less emotional than cutting off various forms of health care (which still should be done IMO). And I also support cutting the military substantially. We no longer actually fight wars. We send our children to be police and target practice for those that hide among civilians. So a 30-40% reduction is in our own best interest IMO. I also support drastically cutting the department of homeland security. And I'm a realist - we owe 15 Trillion dollars. The way to pay that back is through new tax brackets at 500K, 1 million, 10 million, 50 million of income. I don't want Federal income taxes on anyone to be more than 50%. But those that make a billion dollars shuffling paper on Wall Street should be in a different (and higher) tax bracket than the guy working double shifts at Deere. Get rid of all deductions, all corporate welfare, and all loopholes like "carried interest". Everyone pays, those at the top pay more. Everyone receives less services, keeping a safety net for the bottom - but only that.

     

    We as a nation are lessening the future of our children and grandchildren with each day that goes by..... eventually, it may lead us back to the choices that our founding father's faced - life or liberty. Or even worse, perhaps our actions are leaving them with no choices - liberty and freedom may no longer be on the menu.
    8 Apr 2011, 12:11 PM Reply Like
  • radicall
    , contributor
    Comments (531) | Send Message
     
    Here is Obama saying the Same thing 4 years ago when things were "good" and we didn't have to deal with hurting the recovery...

     

    blogs.marketwatch.com/.../
    11 Apr 2011, 03:42 PM Reply Like
  • afiore
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    did you guys see this recent video of krugman speaking? f4a.tv/fjEwSF
    8 Apr 2011, 02:43 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
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