Paul Krugman is trying to have it both ways when it comes to the deficit. On the one hand, he says it isn't a big problem, and that we can afford a lot more spending. On the other hand, he says if there is a problem it's all Bush's fault -- which may be true, but that doesn't change the current reality. Either way, some are finding his reasoning to be lacking. James Hamilton at Econbrowser points to Political Math, which debunks the claim that the $9 trillion debt is okay because it's on par with where we were post WWII. ...implicit in his observation is the concept that since we did fine after WWII, we'll do fine now. But the years after WWII saw drastic reductions in the inflation-adjusted debt driven by drastic reductions in spending. Mr. Krugman points to no similar possibility in the post-Obama world.... Back in 1945, at the height of the spending that saw our national debt rise so dramatically, entitlement spending and interest on the national debt m
You are free to comment on this discussion in any way you feel is appropriate. If you choose to use to use any language which our editors feel is vulgar -- by their standards -- your comment may be tagged "Crude or Lewd" and may be filtered out of the discussion by those who prefer not to read that sort of thing. If you know you have entered something which will cause your comment to be tagged, we ask that you tag it yourself to save us the time. We do encourage everyone to be civil and not make rude attacks on other people in the Forum. We don't censor out those remarks, but few people enjoy reading them and we would like participation in our Forums to be a pleasant experience for everyone. And, by concentrating on what is said instead of who is saying it, even those who may disagree with you will be more likely to consider your opinions valid.
Thank you for your cooperation!