Does Everyone Hate Caitlin Clark Because She's a Straight White 'B**tch'?
Why The Associated Press' Article About the TX Girl Murdered by Illegal Aliens...
GOP Congresswoman Plans to Invoke Extraordinary Measure to Hold Garland Accountable Over B...
Code Pink Showed Up at Jake Tapper's House and Got Quite the Surprise
CNN's Top Legal Analyst: Anger at the Supreme Court Over Trump Case Should...
Biden's Reputation as an Ally of Labor Unions Just Took a Major Hit
Strategy for Winning Thursday’s 3-on-1 Debate
Alexander Hamilton and The Right to Fight the Government
Contract From the American People
A Valuable Investor Asset Class Is At Risk. Congress Should Act.
Our Tragically Foolish Border Policy
Unpacking the 10 Commandments
Presidential Election Farce in Iran
Arizona Voter Rolls Contain Massive Number of Unqualified Voters. We’re Suing to Clean...
Trump Continues to Dominate in the Polls
Tipsheet

NYTimes: Deficits Help the Economy

Apparently they're not just drinking the koolaid over at the New York Times; they're drowning themselves in it.  NYTimes op-ed "columnist" Paul Krugman had an
Advertisement
interesting op-ed published last Thursday in which he argued Obama's projected $9 trillion deficit over the next decade is "actually helping the economy.  In fact, deficits here and in other major economies saved the world from a much deeper slump." 

Say what?
The only real reason for concern is political. The United States can deal with its debts if politicians of both parties are, in the end, willing to show at least a bit of maturity.
Riiiiight.  We don't have to worry about our taxes going up to pay for this monstrous debt!  We don't need to worry about today's politicians spending tomorrow's future away!  Nooo, not according to Krugman, who argues that "it's good to run a deficit." 
Consider what would have happened if the U.S. government and its counterparts around the world had tried to balance their budgets as they did in the early 1930s. It’s a scary thought.
Well, I don't think he has to worry about that; politicians in Washington today don't bother with "balanced budgets."  Krugman's logic is so illogical, but actually turns comical when he claims
[W]e would be better off if governments were willing to run even larger deficits over the next year or two. ...But what about all that debt we’re incurring? That’s a bad thing, but it’s important to have some perspective. Economists normally assess the sustainability of debt by looking at the ratio of debt to G.D.P. And while $9 trillion is a huge sum, we also have a huge economy, which means that things aren’t as scary as you might think. ...

So don’t fret about this year’s deficit; we actually need to run up federal debt right now and need to keep doing it until the economy is on a solid path to recovery. And the extra debt should be manageable. If we face a potential problem, it’s not because the economy can’t handle the extra debt. Instead, it’s the politics, stupid.
Advertisement
Only the NYTimes would purposefully put on these rose-colored glasses to look at the unprecedented amounts of debt being recklessly racked-up today by the federal government (and a lot of states, too!). 

So ignore those mean conservatives and their annoying complaints about how "unsustainable" the government's spending levels are!  Have another glass of koolaid... glub, glub. 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement