Dems are in office - deficit is now good - Krugman:
Hysterical: Krugman & The Angry Left Suddenly Embrace Deficit Spending -- Now That A Dem Congress Can Spend Money On Social Programs
Remember all that crap about needing to rebuild the surplus and spend within our means?
The left doesn't.
Turns out -- if you can believe this -- it was nothing but election-year lies.
I don't know how I can soldier on. The world doesn't even make sense to me anymore.
When the GOP controlled Congress, Krugman devoted column after column to what he called America’s “fiscal train wreck,” “fiscal catastrophe,” and “fiscal quagmire,” and President Bush’s “sheer banana-republic irresponsibility.” Of course, when Democrats were out of power they followed Krugman’s deficit-hawk lead. Hillary Clinton worried about the “staggering federal deficit.” Nancy Pelosi warned about “mountains of debt.” Barack Obama fretted about “our structural deficit problem.” And John Kerry raved about “fiscal cancer.” But now they can follow Krugman’s new deficit-embracing talking points. He’s got it all figured out:
Surpluses are bad; deficits are good.
According to Krugman, while the budget surplus of 1998 to 2001 was “a bad thing, because it greased the rails for Mr. Bush’s irresponsibility,” Democrats today can “let the deficit be.”
He writes,
By spending money well, Democrats can both improve Americans’ lives and, more broadly, offer a demonstration of the benefits of good government. Deficit reduction, on the other hand, might just end up playing into the hands of the next irresponsible president.
Let me get this straight. Liberals whined for years about Reagan's supply-side deficits, which effectively hamstrung them from increasing spending.
So their new plan is to... rack up massive demand-side deficits to hamstring Republicans from further tax cuts?
One would begin to imagine, if one were cynically-minded, that our Democratic leaders are not being precisely straight with us.
ace.mu.nu |
