Trump's rise reveals Republican "low taxes" mantra isn't actually supported by base

[Doc Savage Fan]

In a survey of American economics professors performed four years ago, Krugman was ranked - by far - their favorite living under-age-60 economist. (Open the PDF, then check page 138.)

He's "colorful" for sure...but that's besides my point.

 

[CitizenKain]

I don't know why anyone would care what Trump's base thinks. The opinions of the stupidest people in America are worth as much as they are, 0.

 

[bshole]

He's "colorful" for sure...but that's besides my point.

Actually it kind of undermines your point. I don't know anything about the guy but found Shira's post quite compelling. Krugman sounds like a person with a lot of credibility within his own field, what the fuck more could you ask?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I don't know why anyone would care what Trump's base thinks. The opinions of the stupidest people in America are worth as much as they are, 0.

The $64 question here is how does he know what Trump's base thinks.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Actually it kind of undermines your point. I don't know anything about the guy but found Shira's post quite compelling. Krugman sounds like a person with a lot of credibility within his own field, what the fuck more could you ask?

Economics yes, political insight and objectivity no.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The $64 question here is how does he know what Trump's base thinks.

The bigger question is how do we know that Trump's base thinks? Frankly I have yet to see any evidence supporting such a bold conclusion.

 

[thraashman]

The bigger question is how do we know that Trump's base thinks? Frankly I have yet to see any evidence supporting such a bold conclusion.

Hmm ... you make a solid point. I just assumed that all living things think, but I must agree that I have seen no evidence of such from Trump supporters.

 

[shira]

What problems do you think such a plan would solve?

More money for everyone else?

 

[Atreus21]

And is Krugman aware that Trump wants to eliminate the corporate tax?

Not exactly sticking it to the rich.

 

[ElFenix]

And is Krugman aware that Trump wants to eliminate the corporate tax?

Not exactly sticking it to the rich.

corporate taxes should be eliminated. they really accomplish very little and probably cost much more in compliance than they gain the government in revenue.

 

[shira]

Economics yes, political insight and objectivity no.

Ah, so Krugman has lots of credibility when he labels right-wing economic orthodoxy nonsense. But he's "a hack" because he reads into Trump's rise (combined with Trump's anti-orthodoxy pronouncements) a lack of support for that orthodoxy by the Republican base?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Ah, so Krugman has lots of credibility when he labels right-wing economic orthodoxy nonsense. But he's "a hack" because he reads into Trump's rise (combined with Trump's anti-orthodoxy pronouncements) a lack of support for that orthodoxy by the Republican base?

There is no doubt that he has substantial "visibility" in the economics community...however, this said, his credibility has significantly diminished in recent years as he was dead wrong on deflation and his views on debt have been described as dangerous and reckless by his peers. But hey, despite him being a Nobel winning economist who happens to have been wrong on a couple major issues, feel free to take everything his says in the political realm as gospel from 'on high' as well. You seem to be reasonably intelligent, so the only thing I can figure here is that he must be saying something that you really, really want to hear.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Ah, so Krugman has lots of credibility when he labels right-wing economic orthodoxy nonsense. But he's "a hack" because he reads into Trump's rise (combined with Trump's anti-orthodoxy pronouncements) a lack of support for that orthodoxy by the Republican base?

Exactly what "nonsense" are you talking about? Wanting to do something about our spending and debt before it gets out of control?

 

[boomerang]

More money for everyone else?

How would that work and how much would I get?

 

[michal1980]

wait, until now, the liberals here have told us Trump doesn't represent anyone. Now he represents all republicans?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Unrelated but funny. I just saw some conservative strategist just say Trump is not conservative, he wants to secure the boarder which is a conservative goal but he wants to use big Government to do it.


I just caught the end I didn't get his name.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah, he really pegged that deflation disaster.

Damn- you must have secret access to right wing propaganda central to come up with that list. The part you forgot to mention is that the FRB did the stuff he said would avoid deflation... and the govt, too, with deficit spending when needed.

You already knew that but chose to ignore it anyway to "make a point", such as it is.

He did get another thing right, although he didn't realize how phony the whole thing really was-

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/opinion/safe-as-houses.html?_r=0

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Damn- you must have secret access to right wing propaganda central to come up with that list. The part you forgot to mention is that the FRB did the stuff he said would avoid deflation... and the govt, too, with deficit spending when needed.

You already knew that but chose to ignore it anyway to "make a point", such as it is.

He did get another thing right, although he didn't realize how phony the whole thing really was-

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/opinion/safe-as-houses.html?_r=0

Yes, he did get the housing bust right...but did not believe it would be nearly as bad as it actually turned out to be.

 

[shira]

There is no doubt that he has substantial "visibility" in the economics community...however, this said, his credibility has significantly diminished in recent years as he was dead wrong on deflation and his views on debt have been described as dangerous and reckless by his peers. But hey, despite him being a Nobel winning economist who happens to have been wrong on a couple major issues, feel free to take everything his says in the political realm as gospel from 'on high' as well. You seem to be reasonably intelligent, so the only thing I can figure here is that he must be saying something that you really, really want to hear.

So by your standard, has the credibility of righties been "significantly diminished" because they continually predict disaster for liberal policies, but those disasters never seem to come to pass?

 

[Jhhnn]

Exactly what "nonsense" are you talking about? Wanting to do something about our spending and debt before it gets out of control?

Righties only care about that when they're not dealing with the Evil Empire, the Terrarist threat, Eeevil Saddam or when they want tax cuts for the Jerb Creators.

Reagan/GHWB quadrupled the debt. GWB doubled it again.

But when their dream of deregulated finance delivers a kick in the nuts to the economy their answer is to cut, cut, Cut! & drive home the big ten inch.

Baby! Oh Baby! The best time to be rich is when everybody else is broke, busted & begging, something they've tried very hard to create, just like 1931.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So by your standard, has the credibility of righties been "significantly diminished" because they continually predict disaster for liberal policies, but those disasters never seem to come to pass?

If you're talking about ACA, yes.

 

[shira]

There is no doubt that he has substantial "visibility" in the economics community...however, this said, his credibility has significantly diminished in recent years as he was dead wrong on deflation and his views on debt have been described as dangerous and reckless by his peers. But hey, despite him being a Nobel winning economist who happens to have been wrong on a couple major issues, feel free to take everything his says in the political realm as gospel from 'on high' as well. You seem to be reasonably intelligent, so the only thing I can figure here is that he must be saying something that you really, really want to hear.

What, 3.5 out of 4 not good enough for you?

So please let us know who your 4.0/4.0 right-wing economic heroes are.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, he did get the housing bust right...but did not believe it would be nearly as bad as it actually turned out to be.

As contrasted with all the talking heads writing for sources you trust-

http://economicsofcontempt.blogspot.com/2008/07/official-list-of-punditsexperts-who.html

He's still getting it mostly right as opposed to that list of so-called notables who just keep on keepin' on, never questioning their own ideology.

Facts don't matter in the formulation of right wing opinion if they don't meet the test of ideological purity. Never have & never will.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Righties only care about that when they're not dealing with the Evil Empire, the Terrarist threat, Eeevil Saddam or when they want tax cuts for the Jerb Creators.

Reagan/GHWB quadrupled the debt. GWB doubled it again.

But when their dream of deregulated finance delivers a kick in the nuts to the economy their answer is to cut, cut, Cut! & drive home the big ten inch.

Baby! Oh Baby! The best time to be rich is when everybody else is broke, busted & begging, something they've tried very hard to create, just like 1931.

Your stereotypes, hyperbole and simplistic caricatures of complex issues preclude the possibility of honest and reasonable discussion. But, for some reason, you don't seem to get this. Do yourself a favor and think about what I'm saying to you for a few minutes.

 

[Jhhnn]

What, 3.5 out of 4 not good enough for you?

So please let us know who your 4.0/4.0 right-wing economic heroes are.

Facts don't matter in the formulation of right wing opinion. You can see that in the way they go on about stupid shit like Obama's birth certificate, fast & furious, IRS persecution of billionaires, Ben-fucking-ghazi & Hillary's email.

And, uhh, never forget that Barney Frank caused the housing bubble. Never.