Skip to main content

View Diary: Paul Krugman asks if the election will be honored (266 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Esplly the regressive elements of "Grand Bargain" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Simpson-Bowles provided for a REGRESSIVE TAX on carbon, whether via a carbon tax or cap and trade.

    And no Dem, no champion of the working and middle-class, can possibly support ANY TAX ON CARBON, as it is inherently regressive, hurting the working class MUCH MUCH more than the Larry Ellisons of the world.

    Inequality is as bad as it's been since the late 20s.  And a carbon tax will exacerbate it.

    Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project.

    by PatriciaVa on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 08:12:46 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yet, Obama was up there at the Convention (14+ / 0-)

      touting Simpson Bowles.

      Maybe he needs to tell us which parts of it he thinks are so great.  IIRC, there's nothing redeeming in it, that's why it was voted down.

      "Mitt Romney is Dick Cheney with more charisma"

      by Betty Pinson on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 08:27:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How do you propose to deal (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        with a $16 trillion national debt growing by a trillion every year? I am not suggesting that we attack social programs but spending has to go down, and subsidies of all kinds should be first up, along with elimination of tax preferences and loopholes. The spirit of Simpson-Bowles is what I think the President is seizing on rather than specific recommendations.

        For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

        by Anne Elk on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 12:09:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Job growth will go a long way (5+ / 0-)

          as well as getting rid of the Bush tax cuts.   Both problems can be resolved if we return to using tax cuts as tools that offer very specific incentives to grow the economy.

          "Mitt Romney is Dick Cheney with more charisma"

          by Betty Pinson on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 04:39:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Check out his chart Anne ElK (7+ / 0-)

          The national debt argument is a chimera.  It is simply a hammer used by the Right to dupe the middle class into accepting cuts to our small safety net.  Check out this chart,

          Go to the next to last column.  It is percentage of debt to GDP.  Go to 1946 and check out the percentage.  When the U.S. demobilized from WWII the percentage was 121.7 which meant that the U.S. owed more than the economy could produce in that single year.  Check out how the debt was reduced throughout the years to only 32.5 % in fiscal year 1982 when the Reagan Budgets took hold.  During the period of "tax and spend" New Deal and Great Society liberals were expanding social programs, the debt was steadily reduced.  this was done with out austerity, and until JFK the median taxpayer paid ZERO federal income taxes.  This was done mostly by a policy of having the federal government ensuring full employment.

          The debt begins exploding when the Reagan Republicans adopted "voodoo economics" and put everything on the nation's credit card while they enacted neoliberal reforms designed to redistribute wealth upward.

          Clinton come in and appeases the bond market but with the full employment of the American workforce leaves office with a $236 billion surplus and the national debt is scheduled for extinction by 2010.  Yes you read that right.

          Bush II and Cheney states that "deficits don't matter," and they go about aggressively proving that.  The economy implodes, but "due to debt constraints," Obama pivots away from stimulus and jobs to the deficit and the Tea Party sweeps to power in the off year elections.

          I suggest a return to the pinnacle of New Deal Political economy which was policies designed for full employment, progressive taxation, and moderate deficits or balanced budgets which grow the economy and reduce the relative size of the debt.

          "The working class mind is strange and unpredictable" -- Ty Lookwell

          by Illinibeatle on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 06:01:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thank you. I do understand that. (0+ / 0-)

            But I would argue that there are some structural changes that make a simple return to the New Deal very difficult, perhaps impossible, although obviously we need to go some in that direction. The first problem is us baby-boomers. We are all retiring and Social Security over the next 30 years is going to be paying out a lot more than ever. Add in Medicare and you have quite a prolonged burst of budget-draining expenditures. Second, at a time when we need a really educated workforce, we don't really have one. Only 4% of college graduates have science or engineering degrees, compared to 30% in China. Add to that, the fact that a new wave of super-automation is on its way into our economy that will dispense with many manual jobs. Essentially, any repetitive job in this economy has a robot's name on it. One of the worst habits of economists is their tendency to assume that tomorrow is just a shinier version of yesterday. That may have been true yesterday but today's economy is quite a different beast and tomorrow's will be utterly transformed for most people.

            For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

            by Anne Elk on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 09:02:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Return? We haven't left the new deal yet! (0+ / 0-)

              Have some respect.  You are rather sanguine about those persons dependent on government social insurances.  The entire working class baby boomers and several successive generations beyond has already paid into the system all their working lives.

        •  Tax the rich and put people to work in civil (0+ / 0-)

          service.  The numbers are never going to square up in the corrupt debt economy, why pick on the justifiable social institutions that support our civilization in exchange for more of the disastrous  financial fake economy?

    •  Unless it's "tax and rebate". If carbon was (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse, JeffW

      taxed but the revenue from it was rebated on a per capita basis, it would stimulate conservation but give lower-income people some additional money to cover their costs.  

      Renewable energy brings national global security.     

      by Calamity Jean on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 12:40:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site